Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBush Warming to Global Warming
What man has made, man can change.
— Fred M. Vinson, Arlington Nat'l Cemetery Memorial Day Speech 1945
It was a confusing few days for the climate and those affected by it. On May 22, 2007, Robert Sullivan, the former associate director in charge of exhibitions at the National Museum of Natural History said that a scientific exhibit on Arctic climate change at the Smithsonian had been toned down by museum authorities in order to avoid annoying Congress and the Bush administration. According to Mr. Sullivan, things that were perceived as possibly annoying were suggestions from scientists that there was a relationship such as cause and effect between people and global warming. The exhibit language was changed to minimize and introduce uncertainty into that concept. In addition to that change, Mr. Sullivan said that graphs in the exhibit were altered in order to show "that global warming could go either way".
Responding to Mr. Sullivan's criticism, the museum said the changes introduced objectivity to the exhibit by pointing out the benefits of global warming such as the ability to do more hiking, lower heating bills in the winter and an increased supply of hardwood (conifers being adversely affected by global warming.) No sooner was news of the censored Smithsonian exhibit made public than Michael Griffin, the head of NASA weighed in with his thoughts about global warming.
On May 31 Mr. Griffin said in an interview on National Public Radio that he was sure global warming existed but was not sure anyone needed to do anything about it saying: "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with." Continuing he said: "I guess I would ask which human beings where and when are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take." Mr. Griffin could have asked James Hansen, the longtime director of NASA'S Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Upon learning of Mr. Griffin's statement Dr. Hansen said: It's an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement. It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change." Continuing he said: "It's unbelievable. I thought he had been misquoted. It's so unbelievable." What he didn't say was that Mr. Griffin sounded like the pre-May 31 George ("I call him Vladimir") Bush.
On May 31 Mr. Bush disclosed that he had undergone an epiphany. Using the royal "we" he said: "In recent years, science has deepened our understanding of climate change and opened new possibilities for confronting it. The United States takes this issue seriously." That was quite a change.
In a speech on September 29, 2000, relying on statistics furnished by the Greening Earth Society, a think tank financed by seven coal burning utilities, Mr. Bush said the Internet consumed 8 percent of all the electricity produced in the United States and, therefore, the country needed many new power plants including coal-fired generators. In June 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency put out a report that said human activities such as oil refining, power plants and cars are major contributors to global warming. When asked about the report Mr. Bush said dismissively: "I read the report put out by the bureaucracy." In Trenton, New Jersey on September 23, 2002 Mr. Bush said "we need an energy bill that encourages consumption."
Displaying his "deepened understanding" on May 31, Mr. Bush said that: "The United States takes this issue seriously." He went on saying: "The new initiative I'm outlining today will contribute to the important dialogue that will take place in Germany next week." He said that the United States was in the lead for having technology to meet the "challenge of energy and global climate change". British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the plan was a big step forward. Damning by faint praise, albeit unintentionally, he said: "For the first time, America's saying it wants to be part of a global deal. . . . For the first time, it's saying it wants a global target for the reduction of emissions." Of course it's not all peaches and cream.
Mr. Bush still wants everything to be voluntary. He doesn't want any fixed deadlines for reducing carbon emissions. James Connaughton, the White House environmental adviser said the Bush goal would be to get countries to set "aspirational goals." "Each country will develop its own national strategies on a midterm basis in the next 10 to 20 years on where they want to take their efforts to . . . reduce air pollution and also reduce greenhouse gases, " Mr. Connaughton said. Mr. Bush likes things that are aspirational rather than mandatory. It's too bad he thinks that to have the air we aspirate be clean is nothing more than aspirational.
Christopher Brauchli
brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu
For political commentary see my web page http://humanraceandothersports.com
16 Comments so far
Show AllInteresting sites, hopefor...
I thought this quote from the DoE website was particularly compelling: "The next generation of silicon modules, which will employ a different grade of silicon and use thinner layers of semiconductor material, will have an energy payback of about 2 years. And thin-film modules will soon bring the payback down to one year or less. This means that these modules will produce "free" and clean energy for the remaining 29 years of their expected life."
To ubrew12
Things are bad enough already that I think that point will be reached quite sooner than ten years. The world's larget producer of solar cells (Sharp) already expects a 50 % drop in price by 2010 (just three years from now) and followed by a continuous precipitous drop all the way to 2030. Massive changes in infrastructure take many years to accomplish we need to get serious about this as soon as possible.
Kind regards
hopeforthefuture
hopeforthefuture
Good posts. I recently read an article saying Solar Energy would be cost competitive with standard methods in less than ten years, indeed cheaper than oil/gas combustion. Once that threshold is passed, expect a revolution.
The magazine? The Economist, hardly a liberal rag.
GLOBAL WARMING DIVERSION.
After six years of stonewalling & deception to impede global warming mitigation, Bush now throws a bone to appease the world community with comparable meaningless rhetoric. The dangerous manipulation of essential scientific data used by his team to conceal and derail corrective measures for this threat and other vital environmental reforms has always been apparent--and the ambiguaty of his recent statements show that their motives have not changed.
Contrary to their assertions, measures to reduce greenhouse gases could only improve our economy by lessening our trade deficits, and improving our security by reducing our dependance on foreign oil. We could also regain some of our lost world respect that has resulted from our opposition Kyoto while arrogantly contributing disproportionally to carbon pollution.
Evidence linking carbon pollution to warming has been as close to certain as science can be for many years. Its causes, consequences, and mitigation requirements have been documented by many dedicated environmental organizations including The Union of Concerned Scientists.
Often overlooked is the fact that the same measures needed to mitigate global warming would be necessary even if it were not an issue. Conservation, alternative energy development, anti- pollution refinements, etc are essential for other vital environmental reforms such as air and water quality, reductions in toxic waste generation, land preservation, etc.
The environmental and social damages from our indifference to carbon pollution and related environmental measures is already beyond measure. They can only worsen if we allow this reckless unlearned president-and his team- to continue their horrific war against our environment.
rhsettgast@hotmil.com
San Rafael, CA
WoW! in response to massive domestic and international pressure, dumbya changes his rhetoric.
Anyone who accepts a single word from the mouth of the Cheney/Bush cabal as anything remotely resembling truth continues to struggle with accepting the fact that they lie, pathologically, instinctively, and habitually. About everything, even things which do not require lying.
Actions, not words, remember? Point to one single action that backs up Bush's "please elect another me in '08 cause I've seen the light" propaganda... Exactly. Total bullsh*t.
This article should be read along with yesterday's post by Michael Klare regarding WHO is making the largest carbon footprint via use of oil/energy: our beloved military. With 170 bases and war on several fronts to 'feed' this monster, added to better fuel efficiency standards on domestic autos, and basic citizen concern shown in the form of conservation... downsize the military and LOTS of energy problems get solved.
To those who insist that global warming is not an important issue, I would like to remind them that anything we do to conserve energy will also SAVE MONEY!
Most people do like to save money.
The title of this article is quite misleading. There is no revelation here, just classic Bush. He campaigned in 2000 on a pledge to limit carbon emissions, then reversed his decision as soon as the fossil fuels industries reminded him that they own him.
We have always had voluntary measures. No one has ever been prevented from volunteering to reduce pollution. We will not only fail to decease emissions, emissions will continue to increase untl this idiot is out of office.
It's aspirational allright. If people can get their energy cheaper by buying it from government subsidized oil, coal and nuclear, not too many are going to be willing pay for more expensive clean renewables that are not gov. subsidized, that are exempted from insurance for catastrophic accidents and that are given every gov. handout possible.
All the advances in controlling pollution through the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were made possible by legislation mandating air and water standards backed by penalties. The market adjusts and profits just fine when it is guided by the public interest. Left to its own devices, Big Business has always taken dangerous shortcuts that have polluted the air and water.
Industry is in business to make money, not to look out after the public's welfare. Only government can do that. And if industry is allowed to buy our representatives, there is no one to look after the public interest. Like Gravel sez, only the people acting as lawmakers can ensure that our interests are best served.
It sounds so nice, doesn't it? Suggesting that we have not FORCE anyone to do anything they don't WANT to do, but that we give them GOALS to pursue. Aspirations. Strangely, well over 70% of the US population aspires to face up to global warming in a meaningful fashion, but we'd hate to have our ability to breathe, or climate, the future life of our planet IMPINGE upon the freedom of those poor oil companies who, after all, are just trying to make an honest buck (or a few trillion honest bucks..well, maybe without the honest.)
Of course, we have had 30 years to figure this out and NO steps have been made forward by the car companies or the compatriots in the oil industry. The tire industry supports slave labor in Liberia, because our importation of rubber goods is based on the "aspirational" system of change for the better. The car companies proved they could make technological advances only when we had a major oil crisis and the people of the United States were ready to LYNCH somebody. Then car companies were interested in improving their vehicles. But when Reagan came in and strong armed the world to make oil cheap again, our car companies worked their way to GAS GUZZLING SUVs for all. Lovely.
Under threat of losing the California market, car producer GM managed to create an all-electric car. When they managed to get a way past that legislation, however, they shredded EVERY SINGLE ELECTRIC CAR THEY HAD MADE. They took them back from their owners and SHREDDED THEM. That's how they feel about change for the public good. Screw the public, they say. Screw them and all life on the planet. Aspirations are lovely things to have, but I'm afraid the people Bush protects aspire only to global dominance. Only to unspeakable levels of wealth. They have no conscience. No concern for ANY life, save their own. And, to save their own, is the only way we can expect them to move forward.
Provocative postings per usual.
Couldn't it be effective if even 20-30 percent of Americans denied themselves any pleasure drives for say a month? Send a message and also get at least a measure of a sense of empowerment.
Re; Presidential politics. How do y'all feel about the possibility of an Edwards-Kucinich ticket? As you noticed much energy was spent to smear him about first his wealth and then the unfortunate $400 haircut. As several stylists testified-taking half a day away from their shop makes that charge in the "ballpark". Would it more egalitarian to stop in a shop and pay $40 for a cut? Sure-is he doing that now? Would MSM announce that? Of course not.Edwards and especially Kucinich have shown willingness to confront the worst corporate abuses-8 years of such an administration could put the US back onto an equitable track.The most outrageous of corrupt Congressmen could be swept away with that kind of leadership at the top.
Well-this cynic attributes such optimism to it being Fathers Day.
I may try to post in pieces in case my post is not appearing on the site due to length.
Some people are concerned that the amount of area needed to replace fossil fuels with solar energy would require a very large area (as in the entirety of a couple of states)but it's not true. Take a look here
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/myths.html
where it states that a 100 mile by 100 mile square area (Alabama alone is much bigger than this) in Nevada would supply all the electricity needed nationwide assuming a national electricity need of 800 gigawatts and 10 percent efficiency cells. Just to make sure I decided to make my own calculations so I
consulted the Department of Energy's Annual Energy Outlook found here
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/appendixes.pdf
where you can look up page 19 which gives the
nationwide electrical generating capacity for 2004 and 2005 as 946 and 960 gigawatts respectively. A distance of 100 miles equals 160,930 meters so an area of 100 miles by 100 miles equals 2.59 X 10^10 square meters.
Solar energy (specifically photovoltaics) are still not being treated as a viable option. I have posted this link
http://www.nrel.gov/pv/thin_film/docs/nrel_hp_super_large_thin_film_manufacturing_oct04_short_form.doc
twice already but it seems I have been the last or next to last poster in both articles so few or no people have read it so I am posting it here again in the hope that people can be made aware that , as is said in the article found at that address, solar energy can be cost effective TODAY without counting on any future technological advance. Just by taking solar cells that are basically junk (only 7 % efficiency while the currect record is 40.7 %)and mass producing them we can get electricity for $1 per watt or less. Just like cars: build only ten cars and their price will be extremely high, build 10,000 cars and you get economies of scale.
There is a solar cell making plant in Hillsboro
Oregon that is producing 0.5 gigawatts worth of solar cells per year. The first link I gave in this post (to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory or NREL) says we need a plant with an annual solar cell producing capacity equivalent to between 2 to 3.5 gigawatts for the economies of scale to reduce the TOTAL cost of the installed system to $1 per watt or less. So we are not that far off. Also the Oregon plant is producing a good amount of jobs (as would additional plants nationwide). Since the 2004 and 2005 US generating capacity are 946 and 960 respectively I assume the 2007 US electrical generating capacity should be about 1,000 gigawatts. If the US were to install only 1 gigawatt worth of solar cells a year it would take 1,000 years to equal just the 2007 electrical capacity (and much more than that to entirely replace all fossil fuel based electricity plants since demand grows with the population). If we install 100 gigawatts a year we can be fossil fuel free (at least for electricity) in somewhat more than 10 years. If we install only 33 gigawatts per year it would take somewhat more than 30 years. If we REQUIRE that solar equipment to be manufactured in the US (by invoking the balanced trade clause in the so called free trade agreements) we can get a good number of jobs along the way. Also, the installation of those solar systems would also produce many jobs if we REQUIRE the people to do so to be LICENSED to stop big companies from depressing salaries to hunger wage levels. Such jobs would be immune to outsourcing since no one ,say in China, can install a solar system on your roof from China. It HAS to be done by local workers.
This is the way to go. Let's get to work.
hopeforthefuture