PDA

View Full Version : Is Bush gonna go a little more environmentally friendly?


WhiteCrowUK
02-15-2005, 11:37 AM
Pressure builds for US climate action By Kathryn Westcott
BBC news website


As the Kyoto protocol on climate change comes into effect this week, the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, the US, remains on the sidelines.


The US is responsible for nearly a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions
But the pressure on President George W Bush to re-engage with the international community to curb global warming may build in his second term.

The US is responsible for nearly a quarter of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide, but President Bush refuses to budge on his opposition to mandatory restrictions.

However, this is not the end of the story.

The mood in Congress is becoming more favourable towards emissions cuts. At state level, action is already being taken. And an increasing number of large US firms are announcing plans to rein in energy consumption.

Legislation

In Congress, Republican Senator John McCain and Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman are about to reintroduce their Climate Stewardship Bill which narrowly failed to pass in the Senate two years ago.


The legislation would establish a federal ceiling on carbon dioxide emissions and create an emissions trading system that would help companies meet the targets imposed.

Senator McCain expects to fail again this time round, but is optimistic of succeeding before long.

At a news conference last week he and Senator Lieberman shared the podium with a bipartisan group from both houses, and stressed that concern over global warming was growing and that it crossed party lines and geographic regions.

One convert is a senior Republican senator from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel, who fought to keep the US from joining the Kyoto protocol but is now planning to introduce himself what he describes as "comprehensive climate change legislation".

Nigel Purvis, an environment scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington, says that on the issue of climate change, "the heart of the Republican party is moving".

"The president is not completely in charge of his party. There is an evolution, with the president, whose bread is buttered with the fossil fuel industry, on one side," Mr Purvis told the BBC news website.

On the other side, are some of the party's most popular figures, such as Senator McCain and California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, stars of the Republican convention in 2004.

Regional initiatives

In California, Mr Schwarzenegger has promised to defend legislation signed by his Democratic predecessor, Gray Davis, that would require carmakers to cut harmful emissions from cars and trucks sold in the state by about 30%, from 2016.


Environmental issues are high on the agenda in California but not in the Midwest or south
Other states have indicated they may follow suit, if the measure survives a legal challenge mounted by the carmakers last month.

A number of states are already involved in regional initiatives on climate change.

Mr Schwarzenegger and the governors of Washington and Oregon have jointly backed a series of recommendations to reduce global warming pollution.

And in the north-east, nine states, six of them with Republican governors, are working together to develop an emissions trading scheme for carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. A number of other states are observers in the initiative.

Judi Greenwald, Director of Innovative Solutions from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, says there are various ways these initiatives could evolve.

"It could be that this just continues and we wind up with policy from the bottom up as opposed to from the top down," she says.

"Or, it could be that enough of this work goes on at state and regional level that national policymakers may feel they want to do something more co-ordinated."

Push from businesses

At the same time, many states in the Midwest and south, have not made any moves to tackle climate change.

Reinsurance industries are strongly in favour of policy action, as is an increasing number of energy companies like BP, Shell, Chevron and the high tech sector

Professor Stephen Schneider, Stanford University
The issue barely registered in last autumn's presidential elections, and an annual Gallup Poll carried out just under a year ago reported that global warming was "a bit of a yawn" to most Americans. The poll did, however, find that 51% of people did find it worth worrying about.

Professor Stephen Schneider of Stanford University predicts it will actually be the business community that will push this administration or, more likely, the next one into international action.

A number of multinationals, particularly those with operations that will come under the Kyoto protocol are in favour of action, he says.

"Reinsurance industries are strongly in favour of policy action, as are an increasing number of energy companies like BP, Shell, Chevron and the hi-tech sector."


The Bush administration is unlikely to have a change of heart over global warming soon
He sees businesses pushing for change because of commercial opportunities in the growing market for clean and efficient technologies. And he says there are advantages to joining an emissions trading system earlier rather than later.

"If the US engages on an international level in say five or 10 years, under an ideologically different administration, much of the 'low hanging fruit' - the lowest cost opportunities to cut carbon dioxide abroad via trading mechanisms - will have already been bought up by Japanese and European firms."

It could actually prove more expensive, he argues, for the US to "sit on the sidelines... while its political machinery plays catch-up to the rest of the world".

Some companies are already setting voluntary limits.

A number, including DuPont, American Electric Power, Ford and Motorola have formed the Chicago Climate Exchange, which allows member companies to buy and sell emission "credits" to help them meet self-imposed cuts.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair says he will press the administration to re-engage with other countries on climate change, during the UK's G8 presidency.

But some commentators say that Mr Blair would be better off looking to the next generation of US political leaders.

Peter Frumhoff of the Union of Concerned Scientists foresees public pressure for action on climate change steadily building on the White House - but he does not envisage an early change of heart by the Bush administration.

"Mandatory cuts are inevitable," says the Brookings Institution's Nigel Purvis. "The trend is good - but the pace will be slow."

Firesong
02-15-2005, 12:07 PM
Bush has already shown his disregard for what the rest of the world thinks, apparently the US is beyond having to answer for anything.

Darth Cluich
02-15-2005, 12:08 PM
Bush has already shown his disregard for what the rest of the world thinks, apparently the US is beyond having to answer for anything.

We are, but that's beside the point. The Kyoto treaty's a load of crap. Bush is right not to sign it.

Firesong
02-15-2005, 12:14 PM
And that's the sad part is that people believe that...NO ONE is above having to answer for the things they screw up! The US DOES need to tone back.

Darth Cluich
02-15-2005, 12:18 PM
And that's the sad part is that people believe that...NO ONE is above having to answer for the things they screw up! The US DOES need to tone back.

I'm not arguing your last point. However, all Kyoto does is put restrictions on certain countries, while giving others (China, for instance) a free pass practically to pollute at will.

Louve
02-15-2005, 07:26 PM
We are, but that's beside the point. The Kyoto treaty's a load of crap. Bush is right not to sign it.
Ok...not to be the INDEPENDENT Bitchy voice of Reason but:

A) The Kyoto Treaty is not a load of crap! I lived in a third world nation used as a receptical for US DDT. Yeah, the substance banned in the "civilized world" because it's harmful. Kyoto had provisions that would put a stop to that. Alternate energy isn't a futuristic impossible 18 nations (to list the bare minimum) are already divising ways to use it cost-effectively.
B)Do you really want to stand by a President, who accepts awards from a business that:
1- Has held "Canned Hunts" of rare and endangered species on US grounds.
2- Has been accussed of illegally purchasing Zoo surplus animals under false pretense.


I'm not a democrat and I'm a not Republican per se, and I think that gives me a bit more clarity as to how to approach the issue at hand. Not to dis either party but people love their politics! So, just a word of advice...a President who promises to help the environment but fails time and again to do so is a good a president as one who comits perjury on the witness stand.

blueeyes
02-15-2005, 07:26 PM
And western Europe.

Kyoto's got reasons that more than half of the Senate are against it, and when a good deal of the Dems are against something so core to their constituent's ideals, it probably is a good reason.

With even more research showing some particularly bad science involved in Kyoto and most global warming theories, it's even less likely for people to be persuaded.

And why would international concern bother an elected guy? Most people in Germany can't vote, it's not going to get much of his attention.

EDIT:
For those who believe the Kyoto Treaty isn't a load of crap, read about how the process of planting trees, as suggested in the treaty as a method to gain C02 credits, could release more C02 than the forest would be capable of consuming within a year.

Considering that some wording of the Treaty itself limits research into new forms of alternative energy research, in particular, solar cells, whose processing can lead to release of semi-banned chemicals, and nuclear power plants, whom are limited by the fine print as well, as production of new power plants would be near impossible under Kyoto limitations.

In addition, the reduction in processing of chemicals such as mercury would have no significant reduction in the overall level of that chemical in the air, because YellowStone Natural Park alone contributes more mercury into the air than every coal-fired plant in the U.S. Even DDT, the horror compound, has been found to have been vastly overrated as an all-consuming toxin, with caged birds given massive doses giving normal eggs and reproductive capacities being more effected by unusual illumination than megadoses of DDT, showing some evidence to contradict the "Silent Spring". Men who voluntarily consumed 35 mg of DDT daily had no greater a chance of cancer or other adverse effects.

Ves
02-16-2005, 07:31 AM
There's some things which are definately being overlooked here.
The Kyoto treaty does allow developing countries a lot more freedom than it does developed nations. If it didn't it would be effectively saying "HAH! your people shall suffer for our mistakes" and no bugger would have signed up for it. This part of the treaty stops in phase 2.

Second, the USA is still responsible for a quarter of the excess CO2 in our atmosphere. This needs to be dealt with. OK, so Kyoto isn't the preferred method for doing this. So do something else please. I'm sure that the millions of people on these marches around the world won't mind as long as something is done.

On the subject of renewable energy sources. What about nuclear fusion? The prototype reactor for which is still being held up by, amoung others, the American government not wanting it to be put in France because they didn't get their hands dirty in Iraq - conveniently forgetting that objections are supposed to be based on science not politics.

WhiteCrowUK
02-16-2005, 07:58 AM
We are, but that's beside the point. The Kyoto treaty's a load of crap. Bush is right not to sign it.

No - you cannot just say that - you should at least say why in your opinion it was "crap".

As this article says, America produces more pollution per capita than any other country. If the US is going to disregard the problem, whilst other countries are actually trying to do SOMETHING (although - yes, not enough), then what is the point?

Ves
02-16-2005, 08:41 AM
As this article says, America produces more pollution per capita than any other country. If the US is going to disregard the problem, whilst other countries are actually trying to do SOMETHING (although - yes, not enough), then what is the point?
Isn't that sort of what I said?

Forgot this bit earlier.
could release more C02 than the forest would be capable of consuming within a year.
The nice thing about planting trees is that yes, planting a forest might release some CO2, but you only have to do that once, the trees last more than a year.

Darth Cluich
02-16-2005, 11:25 AM
No - you cannot just say that - you should at least say why in your opinion it was "crap".

As this article says, America produces more pollution per capita than any other country. If the US is going to disregard the problem, whilst other countries are actually trying to do SOMETHING (although - yes, not enough), then what is the point?

If you'd bother reading my second post before you decided to rant, you'll see that I did say why it's crap. But one can't be expected to be bothered with doing anything of the kind when engaged in furious, narrowminded US bashing.

chriz
02-16-2005, 12:03 PM
On the subject of renewable energy sources. What about nuclear fusion? The prototype reactor for which is still being held up by, amoung others, the American government not wanting it to be put in France because they didn't get their hands dirty in Iraq - conveniently forgetting that objections are supposed to be based on science not politics.

From what I understand, controlled fusion is still a technological hurdle.

We really should have more fission reactors. First, it's a good supply of energy, although it won't free us up from needing dino juice any time soon. Second, it will help us in our goal of controlled fusion. The waste problem is more a security problem than anything else, because we can convert all our fission waste into weapons-grade plutonium (thereby reducing its volume immensely), but then what do we do with the plutonium? That's something that will be need to be worked out.

But people hear "fission" and think "Chernobyl" and that's the end of that.

Louve
02-16-2005, 01:25 PM
If you'd bother reading my second post before you decided to rant, you'll see that I did say why it's crap. But one can't be expected to be bothered with doing anything of the kind when engaged in furious, narrowminded US bashing.

Cluich, I'm as American as the next person but on this particular issue I think WCUK has a point. Our country is (by its OWN choice) a blister in the international community. We havve blatantly defied diplomatic protocol various times (Not finishing Afghanistan for ex. or Going into Iraq without full UN support). If our country is #1, as far as power and development are concerned, then our leader must act with every degree of diplomatic decorum and complete respect for other nations or else it's a wide open invitation to turn us down if we ever require any help. As thin as our military is streched and as far away from US soil as it is I'd say common courtesy (two words America has seemingly forgotten) have to come into play. Also, right now two currencies are slightly more valuable than the $ and that's the EURO and the Lb. Now, British assets have always exchanged higher than the dollar, but the fact that the Euro(relatively new currency) is higher is a good indicator of...Hmmmmmmm, the EU is doing quite well and perhaps the US shouldn't try to deliberately fudge up that connection. But more to the point, as far as the environment is concerned Bush's platform will never work. He has double standards...Remeber how the "Canned Hunts" article I put up disgusts you ...Well on of the biggest Comps. involved in these "disgusting" activities recently gave P. Bush an award for pushing for individuals rights to bear arms...a prize totally unrelated to their shady activities but the fact that he accepted it sends a message that animals and the environment do not matter to this administration.

Buddha Monkey
02-16-2005, 05:44 PM
I've kept my mouth shut on this one, besides once in Chat today. So, here we go.

The Treaty punishes the countries that are developed, while letting China and other countries, that in the near future will have just as much, if not more industrialized then America, and Western Europe, get away with releasing more chemicals into the air.

Everyone turns this around and blames Bush. However, as has been stated by Blueeyes, over half the SENATE is against this treaty. The president can't do jack without Congresses approval. Now, I'm not saying I agree with everything he's done, but he has to at the least convince Congress that what he wants done is the right thing.

Ves
02-16-2005, 06:03 PM
The Treaty punishes the countries that are developed, while letting China and other countries, that in the near future will have just as much, if not more industrialized then America, and Western Europe, get away with releasing more chemicals into the air.
I know let's none of us sign up for anything. That way we end up with the newly industrialised nations polluting, AND the rest of us pumping our shit out into the atmosphere.
I hate that I'm about to say this, but if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Currently I'm afraid to say environmentally America is a very big problem and it can't go on.
I might also add we're being punished because we made the mess in the first place.

Everyone turns this around and blames Bush. However, as has been stated by Blueeyes, over half the SENATE is against this treaty.
Thus meaning that over half the senate needs to pull their head out of the sand before it's too late.
As I said before, Kyoto may not be the perfect solution, but it is better than nothing and that's what currently being done. Or at least that's how it seems.
I'm sorry if this appears to be foreigners engaging in "America-bashing" but I'm afraid it is a bit of a case of reaping what you sew. As are we all.

FMtRIS
02-17-2005, 12:08 AM
I'm sorry if this appears to be foreigners engaging in "America-bashing" but I'm afraid it is a bit of a case of reaping what you sew. As are we all.

I am American (lower, North)and I feel like a foreigner so no apologies needed, Ves.

Unfortunately, George W and his administration are not headed in any way environmentally friendly directions. For instance the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill last week that gives the Department of Homeland Security sweeping exemptions to the nation's major environmental laws. The legislation allows Homeland Security to waive environmental protection laws along the more than 7,500 miles of U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico, jeopardizing numerous national parks, monuments and wildlife refuges, not to mention hundreds of endangered species. WTF, I guess that dumbass election ad with terrorist wolves was meant to be taken literally?

Scientists who work for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service say Bush administration political appointees have forced them to change or withhold scientific evidence when making key decisions about wildlife protections, according to a new survey. The survey, which drew responses from 414 biologists despite several official directives that said they weren't supposed to answer it, showed that 44 percent of those responding have been asked by their superiors to avoid making findings that would require greater protections for endangered species. And, 56 percent say agency officials changed official rulings under pressure from industry. The survey undermines the cynical rhetoric made by Bush administration politicos who say that they are interested in "sound science."

In a proposal with ties to the canned hunting string started by Louve, http://www.werewolf.com/vb/showthread.php?t=971 6 , the Bush administration proposed an exemption to endangered species protections that would allow three species of rare antelopes to be hunted and killed on Texas canned hunt game ranches, even after the species are listed as endangered. Federal protection for all three antelopes has been delayed since 1991 due to opposition from the exotic game industry. During that time period, one species, the scimitar-horned oryx, became extinct in the wild. A similar proposal to relax ESA protections for more than 500 foreign endangered species was shelved last year in the face of massive public opposition. So its already in the awareness of the public enough to get things stopped before they start.

Information source, Defenders of Wildlife, DENlines notification.

Lycan_bites
02-18-2005, 04:00 PM
The Kyoto Protocol puts restrictions on everybody, at a certain cost, that is. Bush says he refuses to sign because the U.S's money is tied up in "fighting the war on terror". This is true, maintaining an army in the Middle East certainly is costly, but the Protocol will eventually benefit the U.S. It's puzzling why he refuses point blank to accept the restrictions it places on greenhouse gas emissions. Now may not be a good time financially but there is nothing stopping him comitting to the Protocol now and acting on it when it is easier to deal with. It would certainly be beneficial to the scheme to have the backing of the U.S.

Darth Cluich
02-18-2005, 04:02 PM
The Kyoto Protocol puts restrictions on everybody, at a certain cost, that is.

No, it doesn't. Certain countries would be exempt from the restrictions.

FMtRIS
02-18-2005, 10:35 PM
I guess I should comment about the Kyoto Treaty since that is a major topic for this string. I am not well versed on the particulars of the treaty but I look at it in the manner of a global commerce question. The United States has to do business with other countries. If the Kyoto Treaty has an effect on energy bills for certain products, from which the US has decided that it will not take part in, then could there be an import tariff on Unites States goods produced outside the Kyoto Treaty? It could strain trade relations with other countries, countries which are in a position to use leverage. Take the EU for instance. I will use anti-trust regulation as an example. The GE-Honeywell merger had gone through United States courts and was cleared until it hit the EU, to which it was not approved. GE had to do business with Europe so all hopes of the merger were dashed to the expense of several hundred million US dollars. This is just as example of how global commerce can be effected by international laws. Granted, anti-trust laws might be more stringent than a treaty but I still question whether there might be a certain import tax applied to United States goods to offset the cost of revenue should the Kyoto Treaty raise production costs for other countries.