The Bush Administration has published a report acknowledging climate changes and global warming, but not recommending any policy changes.
Um, yeah. Right.
The document was issued by the EPA as part of climate talked sponsored by the UN. No publicity was issued regarding it, but the press has picked up on it anyway.
The report predicts that over this century the United States will lose coastal wetlands to rising sea levels and experience more heat waves. Water supplies are forecast to shrink due to less snowpack, and some Rocky Mountain meadows will disappear.
Other possibilities include:
– Average temperatures in the contiguous United States rising between 5 and 9 degrees Fahrenheit during this century.
– Forest regions in the Southeastern United States that see “major species shifts” or major changes in growth patterns.
– Drought conditions and changing snowfall patterns in the West, Pacific Northwest and Alaska.
– Average sea levels rising 19 inches. “With higher sea level, coastal regions could be subject to increased wind and flood damage, even if tropical storms do not change in intensity,” the report says.
While the report doesn’t suggest any governmental policy changes, it does state that humans can adapt to global warming without much problem.
Humans can more easily adapt to warming, for example by changing how, what and where they farm and even by how they deal with heat waves, the report adds. “Health impacts” of the latter, it says, “can be ameliorated through such measures as the increased availability of air conditioning.”
The report goes on to suggest that living in crime-infested neighborhoods can be dealt with by simply placing armor plate over the windows …
No, it didn’t, but that’s kind of the same thing. The Bush Administration says it has a policy, basically relying on voluntary reductions and crossing of one’s technological fingers that CO2 emissions can be reduced without actually having to do anything to do so.
While I agree to some extent with the Bush position that environmental policy must be “economically sustainable,” it’s not clear that the world or the nation’s industries would collapse would end of CAFE standards were increased across the board, if retrofitting of emissions controls on older power plants were mandated (or more strongly incented), or if the Administration took a leadership role in trying to address the problem.
What did you expect from a Texas administration. You’ve been to Huston. Living in Huston without AC is like walking in LA. It is just isn’t done.
And at this time, the US can do whatever it likes to cut emissions and CO2, and it may not make a blink of difference, due to deforestation and increased industrial prodtion (much of it ours) elsewhere across the globe…
We’ve taught the world how to do it, why should they stop if we say so?
There’s an interesting corollary to this: in a survey done by CNN: americans favored horse power over fuel economy.
Every major car manufacturer has alternative fuel vehicle (AFV) in production. The federal government has additional incentives for buyers of AFVs, but in the year or so I’ve been in Colorado, I’ve only seen one on the road!! It’s a reflection on out society that we talk about the environment, but we do so little, on a personal level, to correct the problems. Why blame Bush (or Clinton, or Gore) for issues that we don’t address and take responsibility for?
That’s a good point. Of course, one cannot discount the influence that the automotive/advertising industry has in promoting high horse-power, high-fuel-consumption (and, coincidentally, high-margin) vehicles.
I see lots of ads of big 4×4 SUVs bouncing up and down mountains. I don’t see any ads for fuel-efficient commute cars and folks smiling at the gas pumps. Wonder why that is?
That’s where the leadership issue comes in. Elected officials cannot (and should not, even if they can) disregard the will of the people. But they can exert an influence on that will, can use the bully pulpit, and can set some at least incremental changes toward worthy goals.
But, yes, ultimately it has to be our responsibility.
You’re so right…..the advertisers definitely play on the ego. Did you see that Mercedes is actually coming out with the biggest SUV to date? It’s a monstrosity. Can’t wait to see soccer moms dropping the kids off in one of those babies.
There is a catch-22 that politicians are in: if they touch on a subject to close to home, they will no longer be an elected official (americans like their comfort). On the other side are the lobbyist/special interest groups who, for the most part, have issues that are legitimate. The quandry is: The People want something done, but nothing to drastic or close to home.
That is indeed the quandery. Indeed, the People are their own special interest group, wanting (a) to be left alone (as long as (b)), and (b) to have their problems taken care of (as long as (a)).