posted on May 27, 2005 01:13:35 AM new
Untangling the Accounting Gimmicks in White House Global Warming, Pollution Plans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its first year, the Bush administration retreated from a campaign promise to limit C02 emissions, rejected the Kyoto Protocol, and proposed a new national energy policy that would actually accelerate global warming, all the while promising that it would in due course issue its own solution to the looming devastation global warming will bring. On February 14, 2002, the administration finally delivered two major proposals addressing global warming and air quality. The problem? Behind the rhetoric of progress, neither plan does anything to curb global warming or reduce dangerous air pollution. This February 2002 NRDC analysis exposes the administration's fuzzy math.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to the Bush Administration's Global Warming Policies Index
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Bush's voluntary global warming plan announced on February 14 will let emissions of heat-trapping pollutants continue growing indefinitely at exactly the same rate they have grown over the last 10 years. The president's "clear skies" proposal, announced at the same time, would actually weaken and delay the clean up of other power plant pollutants compared to requirements under the existing Clean Air Act. In both cases, the president has used deceptive accounting and false comparisons to disguise more pollution, not less.
Global Warming
1. Enron-Style Accounting
The president's global warming plan uses a brazen accounting trick to mask the fact that -- even if his completely voluntary emissions target is actually achieved -- emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants would increase by 14 percent over the next 10 years, almost exactly the same rate they increased over the last decade.
In the decade from 1990-2000, U.S. emissions intensity (defined as the ratio of total global warming pollution to total gross domestic product) decreased by 17.4 percent. But that did not reduce our emissions. Over the decade, the U.S. economy grew by nearly 40 percent, and our global warming emissions grew by 14 percent.
The new Bush plan simply calls for continuing the status quo. It sets a completely voluntary target of maintaining exactly the same rate of improvement in emissions intensity -- another 17.5 percent reduction by 2012. (The plan sets a target of reducing from today's level of 183 metric tons of global warming pollution per million dollars of gross domestic product (GDP) to 151 metric tons by 2012 -- a 17.5 percent change -- and then rounds this number up to 18 percent.)
However, over the same period, the Bush plan forecasts another 38 percent increase in GDP. So emissions will increase once again by 14 percent from 2002 to 2012 -- the same percentage as the last decade.
Bottom line: Under the new Bush plan emissions in 2012 will be 30 percent above 1990 levels and still rising.
posted on May 27, 2005 08:20:45 AM new
Sounds like real progress to me. US industries getting cleaner all the time.
Of course this doesn't work for the wacko left. It takes a unique logic to penalize US industries and give carte blanche to Russian, Chinese, and Eastern European decrepit, pollutant spewing plants. But then again they can always whine about "exporting jobs" later, so you have to see the bright side (for them).
posted on May 27, 2005 02:54:20 PM new
One portion of the East Antarctic ice sheet appears to be thickening. Worldwide, however, glacial melting and ice sheet thinning continues apace. This report is based on a 10 year study by a U. of Az graduate student, and has not been accepted yet by the scientific community, just by Bear, and probably everyone else who don't want to admit to the reality of climate change.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on May 27, 2005 03:08:21 PM new
Nice way to treat your friends or,
"Please send your troops to Iraq to die for us but don't expect any favors".
NEWS:
Agreement Over Global Warming at G8 Unlikely
BBC News, May 13 2005
Harlan Watson, the US Administration's chief climate change negotiator has said that the US will not agree to any reduction in emissions at the G8 meeting in July. This is a blow to British Prime Minister Tony Blair who hoped that he would be able to persuade America to put artificial constraints on energy use.
posted on May 27, 2005 03:29:28 PM new
Couldn't be bothered to read the Op before posting could you ? Very good way to learn...oh, I forgot, there is nothing you WANT to learn.
posted on May 27, 2005 05:01:41 PM new
Here's a link to the increases for spending to improve our environment, that this President asked for in his 2005 budget. It also describes what moneys were going to what use.
posted on May 27, 2005 05:16:56 PM new
Crow, use the limited brain power and look it up yourself.
TUCSON, Ariz. May 20, 2005 — Part of the Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, slightly slowing rising ocean levels, according to a new report co-authored by a University of Arizona graduate student.
In the past 10 years, the warmer temperatures over the eastern part of the Antarctic ice sheet have allowed that air to gather more moisture. Snow has been falling and causing part of the ice sheet to thicken slowing the rise of the sea level by a tiny amount.
"The interior of the east Antarctic ice sheet is the only large terrestrial ice body that is likely gaining mass rather than losing it," said Curt Davis, an engineering professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia, who co-authored the report.
Prof, the British Antarctic Survey isn't a credable source?
Crow, I know youve given up searching after all of what 2 seconds?
(This map (left) shows key areas of Antarctica, including the vast East Antarctic ice sheet. The image on the right shows which areas of the continent's ice are thickening (coloured yellow and red) and thinning (coloured blue).)
Looks like the areas of increase in ice thickness is
larger that areas of thinning ice.
posted on May 28, 2005 11:06:13 AM new
I read the article Prof. There are still to many unanswered questions about global warming. Whose expertise do you believe? Still not enough info on the subject as a whole.
I've read articles that suggest the warning trend is a periodic cycle of earths evolution. I've read reports that the ozone hole is getting larger or smaller, who do you believe.
If there is truly a long term problem with global warming (as opposed to a temporary cycle), it surely has not been caused by one administration but the combined effect of WORLD WIDE pollution by all many countries and administrations.
How many factories in Europe are still fueled by coal power, how many in Asia?
Crows claim of impending disaster, caused by Pres Bush is as asinine as most of her libelous claims, fueled by her hatred of the man the majority of Americans reelected.
A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
- Bill Cosby
posted on May 28, 2005 12:24:47 PM new
Can't say I disagree with anything you've said, bear. But the problem, as I see it, is this:
IF global warming caused largely by the use of fossil fuels is real and not a cyclical blip, by doing nothing, we leave a very grave problem to our children and grandchildren to solve.
I agree that letting developing countries off the hook is wrong. They shouldn't go down the same path we have. Having said that, WE are the world's biggest consumers, WE create the market for goods that these developing countries are striving to be a productive part of. It's up to US to set the example of sound environmental practice, rather than backing away from any attempt to change the status quo.
I don't blame the President for global warming. It began in the 19th century. I do blame him from backing away from doing anything about it.
I disagree that there's not enough evidence, and even if there's not, it's too critical an issue to ignore. If we sought out new fuel sources, worked seriously to end our dependence on petroleum and coal, and in a hundred years it turned out that global warming wasn't really happening, what would be the downside? Sure, some short term profits by vested companies would have been lost. So what. These short term profits, without concern for the long term health of either this planet or this country's economy, are what I believe the President has sold out to.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on May 29, 2005 12:02:00 PM new
And I can agree with most of your points Prof. How as Americans, can we place the blame on just one president. Did Clinton do ALL he could have, did Bush 1, done ALL he could have done, has any president done ALL they could do to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel?
I doubt it.
As I do see it, at this time there is NOTHING that Pres Bush can do that will apease everyone.
A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
- Bill Cosby
posted on May 29, 2005 12:22:24 PM newAs I do see it, at this time there is NOTHING that Pres Bush can do that will apease everyone.
That's undoubtedly true. And no, I don't believe ANY president has done enough. As I see it right now though, President Bush is only trying to appease one group: The extractive industries who are his largest contributors, and his advisors, the majority of whom curiously enough are veterans of those same industries.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
[hint...it hasn't]
