Supposedly George W. Bush is going to discuss climate change tonight. However, we should not forget that the U.S. stance that signing Kyoto would devastate our economy - primarily because we burn 25% of man-made greenhouse gas emissions - has angered the world community. Instead of serving as a model for the world, the Bush Administration has repeatedly argued that if China and India won't do it, we won't do it. Sadly, even China and India are doing more than we are right now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; mostly because global warming is evident in their glaciers and their villages every day. Tonight we need to call Bush on his climate change B.S. and demand real action, NOT empty promises not backed up by any real funding.
How can an Administration that has done whatever it could to censor, block, and obfuscate action on climate change, be the ones to lead the charge to do something about it?
We have known about climate change for over a century, yet substantive action was not taken by any country until the early 1990s after the initial Kyoto talks. In the meanwhile, after Clinton signed Kyoto, and the U.S. Senate rejected it, we went further downhill after Bush was elected when Big Coal and Big Oil spent many more millions of dollars lobbying against carbon legislation than actually spending money on energy alternatives. After the SOTU in 2006 when George W. Bush uttered his famous words "we are addicted to oil", he decided the best solution would be to cut funding for clean energy and energy alternatives. His presumption was that if we are "addicted to oil" then we have to drill for more oil. It is kind of like saying "we are addicted heroin, but we buy it from overseas. Let's grow our own". We are still addicted; we just have to tear up our own country to get it.
President Bush will say he supports wind and solar energy, but he hasn't provided adequate funding. He tried to zero out funding for geothermal energy programs, even though estimates for new geothermal production are expected to supply enough energy for nearly five million people over the next five years with near zero emissions facilities. President Bush doesn't care. Clean energy developers and advocates gave little money to his campaign. He puts campaign money at greater priority than solving world problems. Of course we all knew that.
President Bush will say tonight that his Administration spent $25 billion to study climate change. That is a lie. Nobody knows where that money went or where that figure was derived from. We know that at least 3% is going to one clean coal project: FutureGen, which may be built in 2020 if ever. We know that less than 3% went to biomass, wind, wave, hydroelectric or geothermal energy; the six primary renewable energy sources. The President will tout alternative fuels like ethanol and hydrogen - which he plans to be produced by coal and natural gas; the result being more greenhouse gas emissions, not less.
So how does the President expect to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions? We know he will not discuss fuel efficiency standards or energy conservation. Heck, even his "spreading of democracy" means more people in the developing world using electric power to grow their democracies. That means more greenhouse gas emissions. He may tout nuclear power, which is one solution to the problem. However, will he ask us to sacrifice now to solve this crisis? We still have ten years before the next nuclear plants are completed and online in the U.S. Will we let climate change worsen for ten years until we start to reverse the trend?
All I ask is that when you hear the President say "climate change is real, man-made, and a problem" that you follow the money. Last year people told me "at least he said we are addicted to oil". So we thought that his acknowledgement would be a call to action. Then he cut budgets for clean energy programs. He only said it to us so we would turn our heads. Tomorrow, whatever the President says about climate change, do not take him at his word. Follow the money because he will cut clean energy budgets, support alternative energy only when it benefits Exxon, and will never grow a spine to stand up to the people who put him in the White House. After all, his VP Dick Cheney ran an oil and gas company whose claim to fame is getting no-bid contracts in Iraq and winning a ruling that enabled them to avoid paying health benefits for former workers dying due to exposure to asbestos.
Any debate about nuclear power (if we even get a chance to debate it) should include these subjects, plus the tendency to overlook geological issues, such as placing plants on active faults (Diablo Canyon and San Onofre in Calif and one on Long Island --forgot the name-- should never have been built because of geolocix instability. The fact that an earthquate hasn't taken one or more of them out is a fortunate. But the US, Calif, NY, (and the NRC)are flaunting such luck by avoiding the necessary discussion and or precautions.