Support Grist
Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.
Muckraker

Feeling the Heat

Bush administration put on the defensive over climate change

By Lisa Hymas
09 Feb 2007
Tools: print | email | discuss | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS
After six years of dodging the climate issue, the Bush administration is finally having to face it head on. They aren't changing policy -- don't be silly! -- but they are changing rhetoric.

Bush is changing his climate talk, but not his walk.
Bush is changing his climate talk, but not his walk.
Photo: Whitehouse.gov
Over the past month, climate change has become impossible for the White House to ignore: more than 2,500 of the world's top climate experts confirmed with at least 90 percent certainty that humans are to blame for rising global temperatures; the new Democratic leadership in Congress has made global warming a priority and swiftly launched hearings on the topic, some quite embarrassing for the administration; and every week brings more corporate leaders pleading for serious federal action.

President Bush gave a nod to the climate problem in his State of the Union address last month, but the clearest sign that he's feeling the heat is a defensive letter put out by the White House on Wednesday, Feb. 7. "Following last Friday's release of a new report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a number of media reports perpetuated inaccuracies that the president's concern about climate change is new," the letter begins. "In fact, climate change has been a top priority since the president's first year in office. Beginning in June 2001, President Bush has consistently acknowledged climate change is occurring and humans are contributing to the problem."

Critics like science journalist Chris Mooney pounced, pointing out that at least three times last year, Bush claimed climate science was up in the air. "There is a debate over whether it's man-made or naturally caused," Bush said in June of 2006.

The open letter also distorts a 2001 Bush statement to make it seem like he's long believed humans were driving global warming. The letter quotes Bush thusly: "First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming ... There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming ... And the National Academy of Sciences indicates that the increase is due in large part to human activity." But those ellipses, well, they elide quite a bit. In the full context of the speech, the human-caused "increase" refers to a rise in greenhouse-gas concentrations -- a non-controversial observation -- not to a rise in global temperatures.

The letter goes on to tout Bush's climate-centric spending -- nearly $29 billion since 2001 for "climate-related science, technology, international assistance, and incentive programs," with $9 billion of that dedicated to climate research. "This is far more than any other nation," the letter claims.

At the White House press briefing on Wednesday, Press Secretary Tony Snow echoed the same points: "many people have been saying, wow ... isn't it nice that the president has finally agreed that global warming has man-made components, only to find out, because we've been telling you, that he first started talking about it in June of 2001. ... What he said [in 2001] was that global warming exists and humans are significant contributors." (At Thursday's press briefing, Snow was forced to clarify the full context of Bush's 2001 statement.)

Consistent with its tendency to hammer home the message of the week, the Bush administration has also been sending out other emissaries to push its new-and-improved climate-change line.

Said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, "As the president has said, and this [IPCC] report makes clear, human activity is contributing to changes in our earth's climate and that issue is no longer up for debate." Of the IPCC report specifically, Bodman said, "We're very pleased with it. We're embracing it. We agree with it."

U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson was similarly cheery: "The release of the IPCC report marks a great day for the scientific body of knowledge on climate change," he said. "[T]he uncertainties have been narrowed. That's great from a science perspective. As a policymaker, it's much better and easier to make decisions."

This is a dramatic and clearly coordinated rhetorical about-face from a long-skeptical administration -- but don't expect real action to follow all the happy talk.

Bodman dismissed the notion of mandatory limits on greenhouse-gas emissions: "There is a concern within this administration ... that the imposition of a carbon cap in this country may lead to the transfer of jobs and industry abroad to a country that does not have such a carbon cap. ... You would have the U.S. economy damaged."

Bodman continued, "Even if we were successful in accomplishing some kind of debate and discussion about what caps might be here in the United States, we are a small contributor to the overall, when you look at the rest of the world. And so it's really got to be a global solution."

A global solution! What a novel idea. Oh, wait, no it's not. Bush summarily rejected the preeminent global solution, the Kyoto Protocol, in 2001 -- even though, as we're now told, he was quite convinced of the climate science at that point. Some other global solution, then? How about an international agreement to follow after Kyoto expires in 2012? Nah, the Bush administration doesn't fancy that either.

The more things change -- even the more the entire global climate changes -- the more they stay the same.

Tools: print | email | discuss | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS

Muck it up: We welcome rumors, whistleblowing, classified documents, or other useful tips on environmental policies, Beltway shenanigans, and the people behind them. Please send 'em to muckraker@grist.org.
Lisa Hymas is Grist's senior editor.
< Previous | Next >
Comments: (6 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Username: Password:

Forgot your password? Enter your username and click:

Some like it hot

The smart money is on conservation and energy efficient technologies, global warming aside, what do we do when the oil runs out? The U.S could easily reduce CO2 emissions by 1/2 and never miss a beat, gluttonous use of energy may be could for the energy providers bottom line, but everything else suffers.

Grist Suppresses Truth -- Again

Wow...talk about a pack of lies.

In 2001, at the onset of the Bush Administration, one of the first large scale billion dollar programs was for the funding of the new Hydrogen Economy...fuel cells, hydrogen conversion, hydrogen cars.   It has also championed nuclear fusion...the ITER project.

That has continued every year since.  Al Gore suppressed this information in his movie.

The Bush Administration is attached by Grist because it went head first into true new technologies, the ones can that reduce pollution to zero: Hydrogen.  It deemphasized things like solar cells and biofuels because it felt that private industry was handling that adequately -- and also, that those things would not get us through the 21st Century.

feeling the heat

jabailo, lies? . . . I think not.  The Bush administration has, all along, been talking about our technological future.  Hydrogen is NOT a fuel, it is a very expensive and inefficient energy storage/transfer medium, like a bad battery.  

Have you ever heard of bait-and-switch?  Putting our bucks into 'future tech' is simply a political tactic that maintains the status quo and delays any REAL change.

Why are spending our tax dollars on 'future tech' when we have had, for more than 15 years, all the technology we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions AND break our foreign oil addiction at the same time - solar (thermal & PV) and wind.

Grist has it right!

confusing the issue?

Bodman continued, "Even if we were successful in accomplishing some kind of debate and discussion about what caps might be here in the United States, we are a small contributor to the overall, when you look at the rest of the world.

I thought the US of A IS the number one emitter of carbon into the atmosphere.

Have I been lied to?

The Effect of Cosmic Rays On...

Hey, mainstream science is not dead!   There are still people who analyze, think, do experiments and make valid conclusions based on data.   It's not all "intergovernmental" cheese eating Eurocrats spouting off about things they are "90 percent" certain about.   Check out this report in the Telegraph...seems that CO2 is possibly not responsible for global warming at all:

Cosmic rays blamed for global warming

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.



Cosmic Ray Distractions Out of Left Field

No doubt we'll see this cosmic ray story bouncing around the right-wing blogosphere as one more reason we hapless humans shouldn't bother trying to do anything about global warming.

The folks at RealClimate saw this one coming and rightfully point out that cosmic rays have been measured since 1953 by the neutron monitor at Climax Station in Colorado and no long-term trends have been indicated. Hence, no positive link to global warming has been established.

Commenting on the Svensmark research, RealClimate says:


At the time we pointed out that while the experiments were potentially of interest, they are a long way from actually demonstrating an influence of cosmic rays on the real world climate, and in no way justify the hyperbole that Svensmark and colleagues put into their press releases and more 'popular' pieces. Even if the evidence for solar forcing were legitimate, any bizarre calculus that takes evidence for solar forcing of climate as evidence against greenhouse gases for current climate change is simply wrong.

Cherry picking facts and figures is a favorite tactic of the deniers of human-induced global warming. In contrast, identifying long-term trends, correlating aggregate data, evaluating peer-reviewed research, and examining large-scale patterns are the elements that constitute real science.

The Union of Concerned Scientists offers some thoughtful perspective on the human fingerprints of climate change.    

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Username: Password:

Forgot your password? Enter your username and click:

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?


Also in Grist

The Week's Most Popular
From the Archives
Tip Tip Hurray!, by Amanda Griscom Little. Senate bills and corporate coalition push Washington toward climate action.
Energizer Money, by Amanda Griscom Little. Enviros delighted with House Democrats' energy bill.
Even Stevens?, by Amanda Griscom Little. With new energy-focused bills, Stevens delights enviros and Obama disappoints.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Jobs Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcasts
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra® | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2007. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks