Bush Administration Up to its Old Shenanigans on Climate Change
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 10.25.07
But, really, could we expect anything less from the "fine" folks who initially refused to release a global warming plan and who skipped out on the recent Bali U.N. climate summit? It turns out some high-level officials took it upon themselves to "edit" (some might say, eviscerate) a statement issued by Julie Gerberding, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Testifying before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, she said that global warming "is anticipated to have a broad range of impacts on the health of Americans" but reneged on sharing specifics. Why?
According to several CDC officials, handlers at the White House cut out sections detailing more information on "health risks," cutting the document's original length from 14 pages to just 4. As presented to the Senate, it ended up being 6 pages long.
This latest political muzzling comes just days after John Marburger, the Policy Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology (i.e. Bush's top science adviser), declared that there was no relationship between intensifying global warming and natural disasters. “[The goal] is going to be a very difficult one to achieve and is not actually linked to regional events that affect people’s lives,” he explained.
Guess the Bush administration's climate change acceptance "honeymoon" is just about over.
Via ::Talking Points Memo: Global Warming Can Be Fun! (blog), ::Think Progress: White House ‘Eviscerates’ CDC Director’s Senate Testimony On Global Warming (blog), ::Democracy Now!: Top Bush Science Advisor: No Link Between Global Warming, Natural Disasters (radio program)
See also: ::Bush Administration Lobbying For Planetary Engineering: Smoke & Mirrors Option First
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Will the Next New Deal be Transit-Based? Three Plans to Rescue the Economy and the Earth with Public Transportation
- Global Warming Opens Northwest Passage
- 3 Green Pre-Conditions for a Big Three Bailout
- Ocean's 'Poop Machines' Could Help Fight Climate Change
Is it true that the earth is getting warmer. We can all agree on that. What happens to be up for debate is it man made and can we do anything about it.
As I have said before we can all do a little something every day to make an impact on how humans effect the environment and it is important to do so.
To keep the life style we have grown accustomed to, we must keep our economic engine going and this will take energy. Right now we can do a lot to improve how clean this energy will be.
We also must realise that when we give foreign nations the power to write laws we must follow and the ability to tax us we are in for an economic disaster. We also loose our sorvereingnty.
We must keep a balance of being good to the earth and keeping our economic engine going.
When people are starving they will be less concerned about the environment. Wnen people are well fed and have freedom they are more likely to be concerned about other things.
Free enterprise will get us out of this mess we are in. Educating people on how they can save money make money live longer and healthier while being good to the environment is the best course of action.
Useing the government and forceing people to abide by laws are not the answer. This will be a death blow for free enterprise which will be the savior of the environment.
Future generations will remember what this administration has done.
What happens to be up for debate is it man made
That's about as much "up for debate" as ID is compared to evolution.
"We must keep a balance of being good to the earth and keeping our economic engine going. "
Being good to the earth can be great for the economy. Does anyone really think that borrowing money from the Chinese to buy oil from the Middle East is good for the economy?
We should be kick starting green business because it's going to be big business, for those who get it going soon and big.
It's a rare confluence of goods: Good for the earth, good for national security and good for business. It's not good for big oil and big coal.
Neil,
Global warming was predicted in the 50's on account of a known cause-and-effect link between greenhouse gases and heat retention, and observations proved that the predictions were indeed true. The businesses involved in producing greenhouse gases denied that global warming was happening at all.
Now that it is undeniable that global warming is happening, in spite of the *known causal link* between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, the industries that have the most to lose will not repent and acknowledge what the scientists who study the matter have concluded and predicted from the '50s. They have spent millions spreading disinformation and lobbying conservative politicians, from whom this ridiculous notion that it is not the fault of human activity filtered back into the population at large from pundits such as Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh (whose web page denies that global warming is even happening. I bet his next retreat will be "okay, it's happening, but it's not the fault of the coal and oil industry").
See this for background on the spin and deception created by the oil industry:
"The Denial Machine"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8012901811669462665
how is it that noone brings rotten vegetables to those things... unbelievable...
The cost of NOT doing anything about global warming is much higher. Maybe the North American lifestyle isnt feasible to keep regardless of any major improvements we make in our energy use and overall consumption of natural resources.
Somehow I think the lifestyle of Floridians might be impacted when theyre underwater.
Not leading the charge to a greener lifestyle through new technologies is a huge misstep.The status quo isnt working.
There are just as many scientist that say that the earth may be warming but there is nothing we can do about it. Solar radiation also causes global warming. Tree's dying in the forest cause green house gasses. Cows farting cause greenhouse gasses. Volcanos erupting cause green house gasses. Humans contribute less than 1 percent toward greenhouse gasses.
I disagree with the premise that humans cause global warming, but we do contribute to it and we sould take some resposibilty for it. Does it make sense that we destroy our economy to save the planet? I don't happent to think so.
If we are honest with ourselves everyone has an ajenda. Why is it that most evironmentalists are anti-buisness?? Could it be a quest for more power through the government enforcement of evironmental policy?
Useing the government to collect taxes and empower themselves to levy more taxes is a way for power hungry people to get and retain power. It is not about the environment. We need to be careful as citizens how much power we give the government, we wind up having no freedoms if it goes too far.
WE also have to be careful of foreign government or the UN from being able to collect taxes and impose regulation on our citizens. This has more to do with a power grab than the environment
The way to save the environment is for independant people seeing a need and filling that need. The need for being independant from oil is a must. The need for new technology in solar, wind power, more fuel efficient cars (etc) must be found. Venture capitalists, technology firms, even mom and pop businesses create new ideas and advance the cause. Government enforcement and regulation only serve to stiffle free enterprise.
There are just as many scientist that say that the earth may be warming but there is nothing we can do about it. Solar radiation also causes global warming. Tree's dying in the forest cause green house gasses. Cows farting cause greenhouse gasses. Volcanos erupting cause green house gasses. Humans contribute less than 1 percent toward greenhouse gasses.
I think what amazes me is that you're able to operate a computer.
I would rather you refute my claims than call me stupid. We must find common ground and then work from there. We do not have to agree on everything to do something beneficial for the environment.
I would rather you refute my claims than call me stupid.
I'd rather that the world be filled with intelligent, thoughtful, compassionate people, but it isn't. I'd rather a lot of things, but have to deal with the fact that things aren't always as I wish.
Your hackneyed opinions are a mishmash of age-old anti-government paranoia and other forms of baseless fearmongering about crashing economies and the like, not to even begin to address your baseless position on global warming.
I don't need common ground with fringe elements.