Post on Bush’s speech

Sadly, newspapers are reporting on George W Bush’s monstrocity of a speech on Climate Change, making a mockery of the concept of action related to Glboal Warming. Guess that they have to, although the nation will be far better served when this man no longer occupies the Oval Office. Let us take a few moments to look at Washington Post coverage, in Bush Seeks Voluntary Curb On Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In short, some reasonable reporting with some serious shortfalls.


My reaction to the article:

This speech was beyond an insult to the American public and the globe. Stop the growth in emissions by 2025: George you have doomed America, Americans, and the Globe to disaster if anyone listens to you … which sadly they will.

But, to this article: Juliet Eilperin, are you serious. “target fell well short of what most leading scientists say is needed …” Okay, what “leading scientist” would say that Bush’s plan meets what is needed? Seriously …

Secondly, the only quote from an environmental organization comes from EDF’s Fred Krupp who has been battling hard for a cap at any price, backing legislation that most environmental organizations are quesy about (if not outright opposing).

In terms of shallow reporting, there is also this line: “all three presidential candidates are expected to back that timetable …” They are all the same, is that it. 1. Obama and Clinton both back 80% reductions by 2050. Not McCain. 2. Obama/Clinton both are sponsors of Boxer/Sanders. Not McCain. 3. As bad a bill as it is, Obama/Clinton might end up as supporters for Lieberman-Warner (even though it is far weaker than their proposals in the campaign) and already are supportive of far stronger measures. Not McCain. While McCain might be “expected”, I guess, to sign up to the bill, at some point, these simple words total muddy the extremely large gap between the Democratic candidates and the Republican nominee on questions related to Global Warming.

For better discussion, see the Post’s OPED, Warmed Over with the subtitle:

President Bush delivers much talk and little action on climate change.

Yup, Bush adds some hot air to the heating atmosphere.

PRESIDENT BUSH strode to the lectern in the Rose Garden yesterday and once again passed up an opportunity — perhaps his last — to do something meaningful on climate change. “Today, I am announcing a new national goal: to stop the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025,” he said. That pronouncement was a weak and inadequate response to the imperative that the United States provide leadership in combating global warming, a responsibility Mr. Bush has shamefully ducked throughout his presidency.

“Passed up opportunity … shamefully ducked …” Yup, polite, but basically on target.

But the goal he set was far too modest: The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has called for a reduction of between 50 and 85 percent in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 — not merely a leveling off.

“Modest …” One has to suppose that the Post editorial page has to remain respectful …

To achieve his low-ball goal, Mr. Bush announced no serious initiative

Any initiative? This might be overly generous.

Mr. Bush did issue a set of “core principles” that he said should guide bill drafters on Capitol Hill — which at least implies an openness to further legislation during the coming months. The “principles” were standard fare: Don’t raise taxes or gasoline prices, don’t impose regulatory costs that hinder American business, and don’t abandon nuclear power. But with the Senate due to debate in June a bill from Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.) that would establish a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, Mr. Bush’s strictures about the right and wrong ways to craft legislation were unhelpful.

Bush as “open” to deals. That is a play on reality. How much has he been ready to deal on anything serious?

What’s needed is explicit presidential support for the Lieberman-Warner plan or other binding measures to reduce emissions.

I am getting the indication that the Washington Post is supportive of L-W. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Mr. Bush once again ducked that decision — and in doing so reinforced what, for now, is a terrible legacy of inaction on one of the most serious problems he has faced as president.

Legacy: Do nothing good Presidency …

5 responses to “Post on Bush’s speech

  1. Pingback: What makes good reporting on climate change? « Energy Smart

  2. Pingback: BLW: Disastrous Legislation or simply Disastrous Politics? « Energy Smart

  3. Pingback: TRADITION! WashPost Global Warming reporting Fair and Balanced « Energy Smart

  4. Its the liberal scientist fault energy is so exspensive!They have never produced an alternitive to fossil fuel. Only bandaids.This proves democrat science is fake.They only talk of magic fuel!

  5. Its the liberal scientist fault energy is so exspensive!They have never produced an alternitive to fossil fuel. Only bandaids.This proves democrat science is fake.They only talk of magic fuel!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s