Clueless Bush Comment of the Day - He's "Solving" Global Warming

By: Lowell
Published On: 7/7/2006 2:47:35 PM

From an interview in the latest issue of People Magazine, President Bush has this to say:

Do you think Gore is right on global warming?
I think we have a problem on global warming. I think there is a debate about whether it's caused by mankind or whether it's caused naturally, but it's a worthy debate. It's a debate, actually, that I'm in the process of solving by advancing new technologies, burning coal cleanly in electric plants, or promoting hydrogen-powered automobiles, or advancing ethanol as an alternative to gasoline.

My god, where do we even begin here?  The mind reels at the ignorance and arrogance.  Let's give it a shot.

1) Bush thinks we have a debate on global warming?  Uh, Mr. President?  On June 22, the National Academy of Sciences issued a definitive report that concluded: a) that "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia;" and b) that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming."  Case closed.  There's no need to rack your brain about this one.

2) Bush is "solving" it?  Uh, Mr. President?  You've been in office since 2001, and in that time, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions increased from  5.7 billion metric tons to 5.9 billion metric tons in 2005.  Even worse, the federal Energy Information Administration forecasts US carbon dioxide emissions to reach 8.1 billion metric tons by 2030.  In other words, we're heading in the wrong direction, big time.

3) "Burning coal cleanly?"  Coal releases carbon dioxide; are you saying you are going to invent a cost-effective way of removing it, sequestering it, etc?  And when is this going to happen, exactly?

4) "Hydrogen-powered autombiles?"  You DO realize, of course, that hydrogen is derived from fossil fuels like natural gas?  And that "the process of burning fossil fuels to obtain the hydrogen will release carbon dioxide, the primary cause of global warming?"  So how does THIS help with global warming, which is currently melting the polar ice caps, starving the polar bears, and acidifying the oceans?

5) "Ethanol?"  Read the definitive smackdown right here.  My favorite line: "Using the entire 300 million acres of U.S. cropland for corn-based ethanol production would meet about 15 percent of the demand."  Wonderful.

Anyway, it's nice to know that President Bush is feeling fit, that he has a good relationship with Bill Clinton, and that he's still determined "to achieve some big things" in his remaining 2 1/2 years.  Just not on global warming, unfortunately.

Comments



I am getting tired (Mark - 7/7/2006 7:45:07 PM)
of defending other-than-corn ethanol. (#5)

It is not a good choice, granted, but there are materials that produce energy (ethanol)that provide much more return after growing and processing than corn does.

All ethanol is NOT CORN-BASED. Corn's return is 24%. Switchgrass' return is 300%+. I agree that The Liar in Thief is making a ridiculous statement about solving the problems, but I couldn't let this go by again. I even asked Al Weed when he live-blogged here about this very question, and have defended other-than-corn ethanol in many other diaries.

The media (WAPO, etc) are not doing their due diligence in this either. They and the television news media routinely use corn and ethanol side by side in sentences about this subject. It must be the big corn lobby (advertisers) talking.



Americans (phriendlyjaime - 7/7/2006 8:34:24 PM)
are just as addicted to corn syrup as oil.  And we are showing it through our rising rate of obesity.  Corn syrup is included in entirely too many food products, with no benefit to the consumer.  It's terrible.


Do you have any estimates (Lowell - 7/8/2006 6:25:23 AM)
regarding how much ethanol could be produced from switchgrass?  Also, do you know how much land would be required to produce it?  Thanks.


I'll look and get back to you (Mark - 7/10/2006 10:51:21 AM)
Lowell; good question.

Also, congrats on your Webb gig!!



The only good thing about this is that if (summercat - 7/8/2006 7:06:54 AM)
Bush opens the topic, he can be nailed on the topic.  Maybe someone could hogtie him and make him watch "An Inconvenient Truth," since he seems to be so much influenced by films.
And those concerned about energy should nail Bush on the tax breaks for SUV's, and the cutting of tax breaks for hybrids.  BTW, I think there are other ethanol solutions--which there need to be for wholesale change--and isn't the Democratic gov of Montana (or is is Wyoming?) doing something about the "gasification" of coal, which does create non-polluting energy, I hear.  But for now, the best solution is hybrids, biodiesel and lots better public transportation, imo.


bush's environment (seveneasypeaces - 7/8/2006 2:22:05 PM)
Has Jim come out with his environment policy yet.  I know it is early but the Virginia Sierra Club is getting antsy.  They want to endorse him but they want a reply to their questionnaire or whatever they sent.  I picked this up on one of the yahoogroups. 

Unfortunately, bush plans to sprint to the finish, whatever that means.  Did you notice the body language on Larry King.  The couple are not as close as they once were.  And when asked how her husband has changed laura's foot started shaking.  She caught it quick enough but that is a sign she wants outta there.  She told her lies about how wonderful and balanced he is but the unspoken language has changed between them.

nancy



Back on topic... (Kindler - 7/8/2006 3:59:09 PM)
The important point is that Bush is trying to punt by only considering options that are years, maybe decades, into the future.  I think that hydrogen, ethanol, even cleaner-burning coal technologies have possibilities in the future if many technological and economic barriers happen to be overcome.

But for the present and immediate future, Bush's approach is to do nothing, and even worse, to block every attempt by anyone to do anything productive on energy efficiency and climate change.  He's against Kyoto, he's against serious increases in automobile fuel economy, he's against all efforts to regulate carbon emissions or establish a carbon-trading scheme. 

How can we ever get to the future if we don't start by making our systems and society more sustainable TODAY?