Copyright 2002 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution  

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
June 5, 2002 Wednesday Home Edition
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. 19A

LENGTH: 734 words

HEADLINE: OUR OPINIONS: Global warming requires more than nod and wink

SOURCE: AJC

BODY:
The Bush administration has now acknowledged to the United Nations --- if not directly to the American people --- that global warming is a critically important problem and that the blame lies largely with human beings.

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities," the administration admits in its recent report to the United Nations, "causing global mean surface temperature and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise."

That concession is remarkably candid, especially from an administration so dominated by energy interests. While the report wisely notes "the remaining uncertainties concerning the precise magnitude, timing and regional patterns of climate change," it expresses no doubt whatsoever about the two fundamental issues: the heating of the planet and the leading role played by mankind in creating that problem.

The administration has clearly done its best to downplay the report. The change in policy was not announced by the White House, nor was the report accompanied by any press release. Nonetheless, its implication is clear: The weight of evidence for man-made global warming is too overwhelming to be seriously debated any longer.

Remarkable as that admission might be, though, the administration's proposed strategy for fending off the looming crisis is more remarkable still.

Basically, the Bush administration advocates doing nothing.

The report mentions such things as more research, more study and "enhanced voluntary measures," but no change in policy. It notes only that President Bush has made "a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas intensity in the United States by 18 percent over the next decade through a combination of voluntary, incentive-based and existing mandatory measures."

And even that's misleading. "Greenhouse gas intensity" is a number derived by measuring economic output against the amount of greenhouse gases emitted. Unfortunately, in the context of global warming, it is a number utterly without meaning. A reduction in greenhouse gas intensity would have as much impact on our future climate as the Dow Jones Industrial Average or the football rankings of the Georgia Bulldogs.

As the president's own report says, what affects global climate is the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The United States, with 4 percent of world population, already emits 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases; by 2020, the Bush administration expects our emissions to increase by 43 percent.

That's the number that matters.

In essence, the Bush document argues that trying to do anything serious about global warming would not be cost-effective: "Environmental protection is neither achievable nor sustainable without opportunities for continued development and greater prosperity."

In that same report, however, the administration concedes that due to global warming, entire ecosystems --- not species, but ecosystems --- are likely to be eliminated and could not be replaced. "Drought is a concern almost everywhere," it notes, and in some areas --- the Outer Banks of North Carolina are believed the most vulnerable by experts --- barrier islands probably would sink beneath the waves or become uninhabitable.

Southeastern forests might break up, replaced by rangeland similar to that of Texas, and wildfires would rage in the Southeast and Southwest. Agriculture in the Southeast could be ravaged, and coral reefs could disappear everywhere. Here in Georgia, the July heat index --- how hot it "feels" to the human body --- is projected to increase by 15-25 degrees. (That ought to pretty much take care of our sprawl problem. Who would want to live in such a climate?)

That's the world we intend to leave our children and grandchildren.

Incredibly, even in light of its concession, the Bush administration continues to oppose efforts to increase fuel efficiency of cars and SUVs. It just recently weakened efficiency standards for air conditioners that had been adopted by the Clinton administration.

It also proposes changes that would keep inefficient, old-fashioned electric power plants on line. Its national energy policy is far more heavily weighted toward increased production and consumption than conservation.

As the Bush report on climate change says, "Protecting the global environment is too important a responsibility for anything less."

LOAD-DATE: June 5, 2002