|
 |
      
 
|
|
|
Scientists debunk Bush's global
warming plan
February 25, 2003: Seventeen
scientists can't be wrong. At least not when they're experts
on a panel convened by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
(at the request of the Bush administration), and they issue a
scathing report on the White House proposal for addressing
climate change. According to the experts, President Bush has
taken "a good first step" but the administration's strategic
plan needs "major improvement." Specifically, the Bush plan
lacks "a guiding vision, executable goals, [and] clear
timetables," according to the experts. They also noted that
the administration's overall goal -- to determine the
seriousness of global warming in order to make sound decisions
about how to address it -- could never be achieved at the
paltry funding levels proposed in Bush's 2004 budget request.
Even more embarrassing for the White House, the experts
ridiculed the idea of conducting research on questions about
which there is already scientific consensus -- namely, that
climate change is happening and it's primarily caused by
carbon dioxide pollution generated by human activities. Bush
officials pledged that some of the panel's recommendations
would be reflected in the final proposal, expected to be
released in April.
"The scientific panel's underlying
conclusion amounted to a collective, 'Duh.' The message to the
administration was that global warming obviously poses a
serious threat to the world, and it's long past time for the
White House to stop debating the science and start doing
something to fix the climate change problem," said David
Doniger, policy director of NRDC's Climate
Center.
Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Tony Blair
has announced a bold new attack on global warming, pledging a
60 percent cut in carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping
pollution by mid-century. Characterizing global warming as a
national security issue, Mr. Blair said economic strength goes
hand-in-hand with a safe, healthy environment and promised to
encourage the U.S. and other governments to follow Great
Britain's lead. Mr. Blair's new plan contrasts sharply with
Bush administration global warming policy. The White House
continues to oppose global warming pollution standards,
favoring voluntary self-policing by polluters. Moreover, the
president's stated target for global warming "emissions
intensity" -- emissions relative to economic output --
translates into a 14 percent pollution increase over the next
decade.
|
|
|
White House ordered to reveal
climate change documents
February 21, 2003:
The shroud of secrecy surrounding the Bush administration
may soon disperse a bit now that a federal court has ordered
the administration to turn over environmental policy documents
or provide a legal explanation for withholding them. The
decision stems from a lawsuit filed by a conservative
Washington, D.C.-based think tank, the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, after the Environmental Protection Agency refused
to release 124 documents related to climate change policy. EPA
had refused to release the information because of possibility
that it might interfere with negotiations over the Kyoto
Protocol -- even though the administration had already
rejected the international agreement on global warming. Under
the ruling, the agency has to either disclose the documents in
question or submit its reasons for withholding them by March
31.
"We don't agree with CEI's motivation, which is to
force the Bush administration to formally withdraw from the
Kyoto Protocol," said NRDC senior attorney Sharon Buccino.
"But we support any effort to force the administration to
disclose to the public information about policy decisions made
behind closed doors."
|
|
|
Bush administration finally admits
big trouble from global warming
June 03, 2002:
A new report by the Bush administration finally
acknowledges that global warming is a real problem for the
United States, one that will have dramatic and costly effects
on our health, economy and environment. The document also
concedes that man-made emissions are to blame. Despite the
sudden reversal -- which confirms what most scientists have
been saying for years -- the White House continues to oppose
efforts to reduce the pollution responsible for the
problem.
The new assessment, "U.S. Climate Action
Report 2002," was quietly posted last Friday on the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's website. It represents a
sharp break from the administration's global warming rhetoric,
which downplayed scientific certainty. The new report echoes
conclusions by the National Academy of Sciences, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and many
others.
Last March, President Bush withdrew the United
States from the 1997 Kyoto global warming treaty, replacing
legally binding pollution cuts with a half-hearted, voluntary
plan that would keep emissions rising at exactly the same rate
they are today. He opposes plans to clean up carbon dioxide
(CO2) pollution from power plants and efforts to reduce
vehicle emissions by making them more efficient. Meanwhile his
energy plan -- guided heavily by coal and oil company
lobbyists -- would lead to increased emissions from fossil
fuels while providing minimal support for cleaner
alternatives.
Despite White House resistance, there are
alternatives. Next week, the Senate will hold hearings on the
Clean Power Act, sponsored by Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT), which
would limit power plant CO2 emissions for the first time, and
set new standards for three other pollutants (SO2, NOx and
mercury). The White House power plant proposal lacks CO2
controls, and has weaker provisions for the other
three.
Meanwhile, many states are taking global warming
solutions into their own hands. Massachusetts and New
Hampshire have passed legislation to cut power plant CO2, and
California lawmakers may soon pass a measure limiting CO2
pollution from cars and light trucks.
" The
administration has finally accepted the science showing the
serious threat posed by global warming. These findings are a
warning that it's time to get moving but, unfortunately, the
White House still refuses to take action to help solve the
problem," said Dan Lashof, science director of NRDC's Climate
Center. "Even worse, rather than recommending reductions in
greenhouse gases to control global warming, the EPA report
suggests adapting to the inevitable, including heat waves, the
disruption of snow-fed water supplies, and the permanent loss
of Rocky Mountain meadows and some coastal marshes."
|
|
|
Bush administration ousts top global
warming scientist
April 19, 2002: Carrying
baggage for ExxonMobil and other fossil-fuel industries, Bush
administration representatives to the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) succeeded in ousting Dr. Robert
Watson from the science panel's chairmanship. With industry
and U.S. government backing, officials meeting in Geneva,
Switzerland, elected Dr. Rajendra Pachuari of India as IPCC
chair for the next five years.
Operating under United
Nations auspices, the 2,500-member expert panel provides
policymakers around the world with rigorous, consensus-based
assessments generally regarded as the most definitive word on
global warming and its causes. The IPCC is widely recognized
for meticulously maintaining political neutrality in its
scientific assessments.
Watson, IPCC chair since 1996,
is a respected atmospheric scientist highly regarded for his
strong leadership of the complex organization. But earlier
this month -- immediately following closed-door talks with
oil, utility and auto lobbyists -- the Bush administration
announced it would not renominate him. That same week, NRDC
released a confidential memo from ExxonMobil to the White
House asking that Watson be replaced. Lobbyists for
ExxonMobil, Southern Company (the second largest U.S. electric
company), and other polluting industries worked in Geneva with
OPEC countries to round up the majority needed to oust Watson.
This is the first time that the IPCC chair has been selected
other than by consensus.
"The White House teamed up
with ExxonMobil and other polluters in hopes of disrupting the
IPCC's effectiveness as the global authority on climate
science," said David Doniger, policy director at NRDC's
climate center. "But the IPCC is vibrant body that includes
thousands of scientists. They and the new chair now have the
challenge of demonstrating that they can continue to speak
scientific truth to fossil power."
|
|
|
Bush administration trying to dump
global warming scientist
April 02, 2002: To
the delight of politically-connected energy companies, the
Bush administration is moving to boot America's top
climatologist off a prestigious international panel that
assesses global warming. Robert Watson's term on the panel is
expiring and the State Department has decided not to
renominate him. The reason may be that Watson has been
outspoken in his belief that global warming is a serious
environmental threat, and is caused by human activity --
emissions. The United States is responsible for producing 25
percent of the world's carbon dioxide pollution, the main
cause of global warming. The Bush administration has
steadfastly rejected international efforts to reduce
emissions.
"The Bush administration refuses to accept
that global warming is happening, then lets the nation's
biggest polluters write its energy plan," said Dan Lashof,
science director of NRDC's Climate Center. "Now the White
House is shooting the messenger in a vain attempt to make the
problem of global warming go away."
|
|
|
Bush unlikely to offer alternative
global warming plan
July 26, 2001: EPA
Administrator Whitman said the Bush administration is no
longer interested in attempting to reopen international
discussions on global warming. This means that President Bush
is unlikely to offer a substantive alternative to the Kyoto
Treaty when negotiators meet again in October. Whitman's
statements seem to contradict the U.S. position, as stated by
Secretary of State Colin Powell last week during a summit with
foreign ministers. "We are looking toward [the Morocco
meeting] for the tabling of specific proposals that could be
seen as an alternative," Powell told reporters. According to
Whitman, the administration instead will "continue doing our
own thing," which entails developing a proposal later this
year for reducing three major power plant pollutants --
nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury. The administration
still opposes regulations to reduce carbon dioxide pollution
from coal-fired power plants, the largest source of greenhouse
gas emissions.
"Our country is responsible for 25
percent of CO2 pollution, yet President Bush refuses to join
the 178 other nations that are working to curb these harmful
emissions," said Dan Lashof, science director of NRDC's
Climate Center. "When it comes to global warming, the United
States is a rogue nation."
|
|
|
NRDC praises global warming
agreement; calls on Bush to reconsider
July 23,
2001: The agreement reached today by more than 170
countries in Bonn, Germany, signals that Europe, Japan and the
rest of the world will move forward to ratify and implement
the Kyoto Treaty, rejecting the Bush administration's efforts
to kill it.
President Bush's posture on global warming
is at odds with public opinion at home, as well as abroad. He
is facing mounting pressure in Congress to cut global warming
pollution from power plants and vehicles, and to enact a
clean, efficient energy plan. According to Dr. Daniel Lashof,
the science director of NRDC's Climate Center, "The
president's unwillingness to act will cost American jobs and
business, as we lose access to new markets for clean energy
technologies. It will rob American farmers and foresters of
credit for enhancing the carbon soaked up by soils, crops and
trees. And it will saddle American consumers with both higher
energy bills and more pollution."
|
|
|
Bush budget cuts for international
global warming programs more significant than
reported
July 12, 2001: The Bush
administration's new "Federal Climate Change Expenditures
Report to Congress" indicates that U.S. assistance to
developing countries to help curb global warming has been cut
nearly 25 percent -- from $165 million down to $124 million --
according to recent media reports. But a fuller analysis
reveals that actual cuts may be even more significant. In
fact, the administration reduced critical energy assistance
projects by 32 percent and eliminated two programs designed to
promote U.S. transfer of energy efficiency and renewable
technologies.
The administration's accounting of U.S.
spending to combat global warming in developing countries
appears to be padded with projects where reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions is, at best, an indirect benefit.
Many of these projects seek to preserve forests and natural
systems, which may serve as "carbon sinks." While these
projects are very important in their own right, their value
from a climate standpoint is unproven. A new study by
Britain's Royal Society, for example, questions the use of
carbon sinks in combating global warming. The society points
out that even the most aggressive carbon sequestration
programs will achieve at most 25 percent of the CO2 reductions
that are required by 2050 to avoid large increases in global
temperatures. Thus, the focus should remain on curbing
greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency and
renewable energy programs.
|
|
|
NRDC to President Bush: Get serious
about global warming
June 11, 2001: NRDC
today called on President Bush to demonstrate that he takes
global warming seriously with actions rather than words.
"President Bush says he takes global warming seriously, but he
is stalling instead of acting to cut global warming
pollution," said David Hawkins, director of NRDC's Climate
Center. "The Bush energy plan, which calls for burning more
fossil fuels, would actually accelerate global warming. A
serious plan, on the other hand, would cut global warming
pollution from coal and gasoline and increase our reliance on
energy efficiency and renewable energy sources."
NRDC
outlined five ways to measure whether the president is really
serious about addressing global warming: (1) actions to reduce
global warming pollution from power plants, including carbon
dioxide; (2) actions to increase fuel efficiency standards for
new automobiles; (3) actions to increase the amount of
electricity produced from renewable sources; (4) actions to
promote energy efficiency in American homes, offices and
factories; and (5) actions to lead the international community
by significantly reducing domestic greenhouse emissions,
instead of blocking international action by abandoning the
Kyoto Protocol.
|
|
|
Bush administration rejects Kyoto
Protocol
March 28, 2001: EPA Administrator
Christie Todd Whitman announced that the Bush administration
would not support ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, the
international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This
announcement by the Bush administration came just weeks after
the world's eight largest industrialized nations issued a
declaration that they would strive to reach an agreement on
the treaty.
|
|
|
| |
