ddoubleez

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

Bush Admits to Role of Humans in Global Warming
By Caroline Daniel and Fiona Harvey
Financial Times

Thursday 07 July 2005

President George W. Bush yesterday acknowledged more openly than in the past the role of human activity in causing global warming, as he travelled to Scotland for the summit of the Group of Eight industrialised nations.

"I recognise the surface of the earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," he said during a visit to Denmark en route to Gleneagles.

However, he reaffirmed his administration's criticism of efforts to control greenhouse emissions via the Kyoto agreement, ratified by the other G8 nations. "It did not work for the world. The reason it did not work is many developing countries were not included. I have also told our friends in Europe that Kyoto would have wrecked our economy," he said.

Mr. Bush reiterated his longstanding emphasis on technological solutions, rather than mandatory emissions reductions, calling it a strategy for the "post-Kyoto era".

He also raised the prospect of sharing new technologies with developing nations such as China, India and Brazil, which will be represented at the summit today and are expected to discuss possible actions to tackle climate change.

Both the US and European Union see these discussions as vital. The EU would like to see the developing countries support the Kyoto protocol, perhaps with a view to attempting to reduce their emissions in the years beyond 2012, when the current treaty provisions expire.

This would place greater pressure on the US to agree to emissions cuts. But the US has several times tried to block negotiations on climate change post-2012, and would prefer to see the developing nations line up behind its idea of relying on new technologies in the future rather than slashing greenhouse gas output now.

In a move that some officials have portrayed as part of efforts to persuade Mr. Bush to sign up to a common communiqué on climate change, Gordon Brown, the UK chancellor of the exchequer, last night suggested that the World Bank would devote more money to encouraging developing countries to take up alternative energy sources.

The bank is already involved under the Kyoto protocol in financing the transfer of low-emission technology to countries whose emissions are high overall but low per capita, reflecting their relative poverty.

Mr. Bush's resistance to mandatory emission cuts, however, appears increasingly at odds with US public opinion. A poll this week from the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), a Washington-based research group, found that 56 per cent of respondents would be willing to incur significant economic costs to address climate change, if there was agreement in the scientific community on global warming, and 73 per cent felt the US should "participate" in the Kyoto protocol.

Mr. Bush was also facing increased pressure from Congress, and some from within his own party, on climate change, said Jason Grumet, executive director of the US National Commission on Energy Policy. He pointed to a recent Senate resolution that acknowledged the role of human activity in causing climate change and paved the way for discussions of mandatory programmes to reduce emissions.

However, Mr. Bush has refused to consider mandatory greenhouse gas emissions cuts.

In this he is out of step with the rest of the G8, which argues that technology alone will not be enough to stave off dangerous climate change, and that emissions must be reduced now.

93crawler

How come it takes so long for this moron to come around to proven, scientific facts?! Kyoto should've been signed in 1997, but the Republican-led congress decided against it, although Clinton wanted it to be signed into law. I will say that the President has a valid point that the developing nations, mainly China and India, should also participate, but this shouldn't be the reason why we don't sign anything. China has proven to be very unwilling to do much to protect the environment, or curb current emissions. I recently watched a series called "Planet in Peril," which went into just how polluted China's rivers are, and how their people are reporting dramatically increased levels of cancer and other disease.

The public overwhelmingly supports reducing our impact on the planet in any way possible---just when are our "supposed" leaders going to listen to us, and not special interest groups and lobbyists? Every other modern, industrialized country in the world is incredibly more progressive than we are, and it is outrageous to me. I hope that the upcoming elections bring a more civilized, progressive, and intelligent administration/congress that is willing to actually listen to science, and not rely on spiritual, myopic, narrow-minded beliefs like the current administration.

Krasch

Kyoto is a total joke.

So long as developed countries can trade their credits, and developing countries (who pollute far more than the developed nations do) are exempt from any targets, then Kyoto is nothing more than a paper tiger.

Sounds good in theory if you don't look too hard, totally useless in the real world.

Why should a developed nation like the U.S. sign a treaty that hamstrings their needs while the real culprits go merrily along? How is that good for the U.S.?

masonx

Well why doesn't the U.S. step up?

-League of Nations
-United Nations
-The US has to lead in this issue also if real change is to be attained. What use will "American interests" be when the sea rises above Lady Liberty's nostrils?

I've a good feeling the next administration will take a far more leading role on this issue, despite the fact that issues such as Global warming only get addressed in times of peace.

ddoubleez

It was a start... In addition to credits, it paid countries with jungle forests and trees to keep them intact.. This is a way to sequester co2 naturally...

And the US has 5% of the worlds population and produces over 25% of the pollution... If you have to pay to pollute, the idea is you will just find ways to reduce your emissions.....

Krasch

Fine it was a start. I'll give you that.

But it just doesn't make sense to sign, ratify, and give tacit approval of a plan that cuts yourself off at the knees while the really bad guys at the table don't have to pay any price.

ddoubleez

Europe, china and the US are the only three groups that pollute at a large scale....

And any developing country that is producing any pollution, it is to satisfy the needs of the three groups above......

So for clarification, who are the bad guys....

Not signing the treaty has hurt us with relations and deplomacy, for that reason alone, it was a good idea to perticipate....

Krasch

Another point that's conveniently forgotten is that if Bush says we're responsible for global warming, then we can't be...

Bush is a mental midget who's gotten little even close to right since taking office. And you want to use HIM to back up your arguments?

shiiboi

When we get our lazy asses up off the couch and vote on election day. The complacency of the public is as much to blame as the aggressive tactics of the lobbyists.

Have you noticed that in the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary there were record turnouts? Hopefully this is a sign of things to come in the November election.

Of course, in the end, the candidates available to vote for in the 2 'major' parties will be people beholden to the special interests. This might be a good year to forget about voting for 'the lesser of two evils' and vote libertarian, or green or whatever else supports your political philosophy to send a message that we're not going to take business as usual anymore.

Krasch

The problem with that is that it splits the vote among various third parties and most will vote for the big two anyway, resulting in you wasting your vote.

ddoubleez

No, just pointing out that even someone who is paid to ignore it, had to admit to it.... The scientific community backs me!

gen. cutter

global warming is a tax fraud sceme created by polititions. al gore and the U.N.! Carbon trading, lol. legalized bribes! what a recipe for disaster. kyoto, what a joke! ask the I.P.C.C. how much good it will do even if every country on earth participated in it...nothing at all.

and the public soaks it in while watching their T.V. and drinking beers.

"say something loud enough and for long enough, and people will believe you."-Hitler's propaganda machine.

the peer reviewed science disputing man-made global warming is in. you wont find it on any of mainstream media's news. global warming is a dead issue just like global cooling of the 70's.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....3a-b35d0842fed8


New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Posted By Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov – 4:44 PM ET

Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.

“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore.

....it goes on with some great studys and peer reviewed findings. Man-made global warming is over. Now if only the media would report it to the herds so bovine america would wake up.

Juan.©amaney

Probably because they aren't proven scientific facts, just speculation, as so many other reputable scientists have disproven the myth of global warming. Didn't the owner of the weather channel pretty much call it a crock of shit?

Here's a little example of why I think its bullshit. When you have a cup of water and put ice on it, the ice melts and cools the water. So if the polar ice caps are melting, why is the ocean water warming?

___________________________________________

gen. cutter

that's pretty funny. too bad that reasoning it wont hold up in court. it reminds me of the other one:

if melting ice doesn't raise the water level in a glass of water, why will it raise the oceans 20 feet?