Bush to Host Rival Climate Talks — Obstruction, Co-option or Overdue Leadership?

President Bush has announced he will some three days after the United Nations holds crucial climate talks in September. Leading economic powers and carbon emitters from the industrialized and developing world [more | more2] have been invited from September 27-28 to discuss reducing carbon emissions. Golly. If the Bush administration really has had a change of heart on the need for mandatory carbon and other greenhouse gas emission reductions, it would be fantastic. I would not hold my breathe however. This administration has been criminally negligent in not only pulling the United States out of productively participating in international climate talks and agreements; but has sought to obstruct progress by the rest of the world as well. Reneging on pledge to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, withdrawing from Kyoto, censoring U.S. government climate scientists, gutting air pollution and other environmental laws — this President will go down in history as being horrendously criminally negligent on environmental issues. His only hope to prove he is genuine is to move past voluntary approaches and commit to moving the world towards equitable mandatory emissions cuts. Anything else is continued criminally negligent climate obstruction.

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Gilles Fecteau says:

    But isn't that the standard Bush's administration strategy?
    Provide a platform for all anti global warming interests to get equal press coverage few days after the UN climate talks.

  2. Carolyn Beckingham says:

    Calling this behaviour criminal negligence is if anything an understatement. A friend of mine says that when people have to choose between the environment and the economy they always choose the economy. How can anyone who thinks for a moment do that ? What's the good of cheap money or even cheap food if the world becomes uninhabitable ?

  3. david becher says:

    I believe there is a sea change occurring and while the rest of the world is not going to go plant and hug trees it is taking notice and taking into consideration the possibility that atmospheric heating is occurring even though it is even under IPCC terms it is not possible to (I did not say debatable) to model GHGs and temperature increase over any signficant time horizon. While you may be in the end be correct that Bushee may not be fully jumping on the Cause it is pejorative to argue a person's intentions before they are even known i.e., by association. The good thing about having two sides in a debate is it provides a means to avoid really bad policy.

  4. ewoc says:

    David,
    If the Bush Administration's agenda on climate change is not fully obvious to you by now you are in deep, deep denial.
    Having been a teenager during the Nixon Administration, I can attest to the fact that Nixon's criminal acts pale in comparison to the current Administration. They have broken US and international law on so many issues that it is impossible to keep track anymore. Their lame attempts to avoid admitting that we are torturing so-called “terrorist” suspects, or subcontracting the torture of same to nasy nations while flying the poor sots there in Gulfstream jets, should tell you something about the real intentions of this gang. But that is, as they say, just the tip of the iceberg (Glen, sorry for the pun!).
    On every single environmental issue (air and water pollution, forest policy, management of federal lands, endangered species protection, and yes, climate) one can assume a priori that what this Administration says about its intentions is almost always the opposite of what it means. Hence the “Clear Skies” initiative, which would permit major increases in nasty pollutants including mercury; the “Healthy Forests” initiative, which (and I live in the Pacific Northwest, so I see it daily) has meant increased logging in primary forests and the Administration “settling” lawsuits with the timber industry to benefit them directly (as well as packing federal agencies with their attorneys and lobbyists) and also (among many other issues) climate policy, which has meant the US works against any comprehensive international agreements on GHG reductions consistently!
    Bush has absolutely no intention of taking effective action to reduce US GHG emissions before he leaves office. None. Zip. Far from it – his minions are even now trying to sabotage global efforts to do just that. Try googling Paula Dobransky (sp?) the Undersecretary of State whose job has been to sabotage international agreements. Or Harlan Watson, the former coal industry lobbyist who was Bush's point man at several major climate talks. Or numerous others. The list goes on and on……..Have you read Elizabeth Kohlbert's book? There is an excellent chapter in there about what the Administration is really doing to sabotage climate negotiations. Why? If I have to answer the question it demonstrates to me, again, that you are in deep denial.
    If you cannot see this for what it is, I suggest you simply don't want to. We can discuss the accuracy of climate modeling all day, but to argue that this Administration's intentions and actions after six and a half years of lying and deceit is simply a waste of energy. I believe you live in the UK – n'est pas? Perhaps you are not exposed to this stuff on a daily basis, but those of us who are know very well that we can expect nothing of value out of an Administration that will eventually be revealed as one of the very worst in the history of our nation. Just yesterday the Administration got enough votes in Congress to eviscerate the 4th amendment to our Constitution, and allow warrantless searches of US citizens on US soil. That's enough to convince me that they are lawless and lack all respect for our country.

  5. ewoc says:

    By the way, those were Republican votes (lockstep=robot) with a handful of Democrats, so don't blame them.

  6. phill Parsons says:

    The same policies are followed by the little Bush downunder.
    Really bizzare is the Environment Minister [Secretary in US terms] who states clearly the dangers of inaction to avoid climate destabilization whilst fialing to take any meaningful action.
    Dissembling, misleading and avoiding action to prevent climate destabilization endangers all life and thje assemblage of human activity.
    Strange behaviour for those who supposedly laud it as the great work of a diety.
    “Money, money, money thats all you white fellas care about.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.