September 24, 2003
Worst Bush Policies
Where is Bush's misleadership failing us most? I find myself to be in the company of Paul Krugman [1] and Bill Moyers [2] in thinking that the worst aspect about Bush's regime is his effect on the environment. As James commented on my previous post, the problem is not just that there is an issue with global warming that we are not dealing with right now, it is that all the evidence shows that the problem is much more serious than we imagined when we first starting to track this problem.
As Bush and his friends work on new ways to ignore the problem (while actively promoting policies that will make it worse), the evidence grows that we are facing dramatic and catastrophic changes.
Scientists in Canada reported this week that a major ice shelf in the Arctic is breaking up. (Thanks to DesertJo for the link.) This was predicted by the global warming models. As were the heat related deaths in Europe as the heat waves swept the continent. And the rising sea level which is starting to drown islands in the sea.
I know when I describe the way the Bush White House approaches the environment to my friends, they are aghast at the extent of the problem and the callousness of the way the WH deals with this issue.
Usually, the conversation starts, why do you fault Bush for the problem? Didn't it start before he came into office? In response, I ask them if they know who was responsible for the gigantic salmon kill in 2001 in the Klamath Basin. (Answer: Karl Rove -- biologist extraordinaire because it "helped" the farmers and "put the screws to" the environmentalists.)
Or why Bush is overachieving on his promise to do to America what he did for Texas in promoting cleaner air. (Yes, his "Clean Skies" initiative really does increase air pollution.)
And my friends are shocked to realize that for the Bush administration, none of this matters to them because ultimately they don't believe the environment counts. Otherwise the WH would not put someone who doesn't believe in ecosystems in charge of forest policy (a tree is a tree is an amount of board feet).
Politically, the Democrats are starting make a bigger deal about this. The left coast governors are working on some initiatives to reduce global warming. However, we need to make sure everyone understands the problem and the risk and why we must worry about it. It is critical that we remove this illegitimate regime so our efforts to address the problems will not be drowned out by the increased pollution and further degradation they continue to promote.
Kevin Drum has a post today about the Bush White House approach to the environment and also feels obligated to condemn their attitude:
This, I think, displays the Bush White House at its most typical. Genuine problems simply don't matter to them. The only thing that counts is advancing their political agenda, and anything that doesn't fit that agenda is vigorously brushed under the carpet and ignored — in the apparent belief that problems genuinely don't exist if they are inconvenient to the administration's goals. (emphasis added)
Indeed.
------
[1] Krugman: The budget deficit, joblessness, and, ultimately, what really, really scares me, even though I can't write about it all the time, is the environment. That's more important than anything.
[2] Moyers: Every policy of government that is bad or goes wrong can ultimately be reversed. The environment is the one exception to the rule of politics, which is that to every action there is a reaction. By the time we all wake up, by the time the media starts doing their job and by the time the public sees what is happening, it may be too late to reverse it. That's what science is telling us. That's what the Earth is telling us. That's what burns in my consciousness.
Hey Mary, look at this.
Demand for hybrids is strong. There's something I fundamentally don't get in the marketing of these cars:
Sure, they help the environment immensely. But the operating costs for a typical family are drasitcally reduced, depending on what kind of car they replace. Gas really adds up.
It's time to make the internal combustion/ attached tranny paradigm one for the history books.
All such cars starting in 2007 are BANNED. Everything from there on out are hybrids.
Trains are still hybrids. Battleships used to be. Aircraft carriers are, but they use uranium, not gasoline. It's a totally viable, realistic policy goal. The paradigm has been around for a long, long time.
I'm going to think about this. It's so smart and helps solves so many problems. Surely a Democrat could pick this up--get out of the middle east, hybrid production only.
Posted by: paradox on September 24, 2003 12:39 PMOrcinus is compiling an analysis of precisely this matter. Here he explains what he wants to do:
Announcing:I'll bring the devilled eggs
"Manifestly Unfit: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush"
As the title suggests, this project is an attempt to catalog the many disasters that have befallen the United States since George Bush's inauguration in January 2001, as well as to give a thorough assessment of his culpability in them...
...This mini-book will be entirely factual, and will eschew any kind of ...vicious attacks on Bush's character
Posted by: James R MacLean on September 24, 2003 01:19 PM
Paradox, the problem with ideas such as that is that if there were a large number of people--say, over 50% of likely voters--who wanted our economy switched to hybrid technology in two years, hybrids would have a market share of at least 50% (at the very least, of new car sales). Instead, fewer than one new car per 2000 is a hybrid (this is based on US sales of the Toyota and the Honda models--your story refers to a newer technology, and to be fair I didn't want to make a comparison with this brand new Prius as the numerator). Here's a more detailed (but still optimistic) report
As far as the oil/Mideast connection--the allure of the Mideast to US firms is the oil rents, not the actual oil. The USA gets a rather modest share of petroleum from the Gulf, more from Africa, and still more from Venezuela. For example, I expect between 2005-2020, North American and European oil consumption will actually decline--possibly by a lot. But increased growth in Asia will more than take up the slack, and it could be a decade after that before Asian firms replace Anglo-American ones as the market leaders in the Gulf.
Posted by: James R MacLean on September 24, 2003 01:42 PMIMO, the USA requires a better (and more publicly acknowledged) industrial policy, and yes, this would stimulate a far bigger business in hybrid tech--a larger share of the total ownership costs associated with future cars would be industrial goods & services as opposed to raw materials.
But it would be a bad policy strategy as well as political madness to campaign on a platform of explicitly limiting voter choice.
Posted by: James R MacLean on September 24, 2003 01:48 PMI sure wish I could drag that rat bastard out to the Riverside CA area right about now! The smog is so thick that you can't see 1/2 mile, and you can taste the air. I'd like to stick his corporate-whore ass in the smoggiest place out here for about a week or so, and see how he feels about the environment then.
Posted by: pessimist on September 24, 2003 07:15 PMmary,
i agree - global warming in my #1 concern... thank for you for raising the issue and for the discussion.
my #2 concern is related... the possibiltiy that we are nearing the peak of fossil fuel production.... a friend lent me her copy of "the party's over" by richard heinberg. i have not yet studied the issue enough to judge for myself if heinberg's analysis is sound. but, if he's right - we humans may be dealing with severe resource limitations just as the major effects of global warming are occuring.
I think the real problem with oil is the CO2 emissions and a process called "[radiative] forcing." "Forcing" is caused when the outer electron shells of certain compounds, such as CO2, absorb solar energy at higher altitudes, then release it at lower altitudes. This means that a plume of, say CO2 intensive emissions is likely to leave a fingerprint of anomalously high temperatures. This can cause a bigger and more immediate disturbance than overall climate change.
(Not that the latter isn't a big problem. But critics of the concept of GW are basing their attacks entirely on the lack of statistical evidence of a secular rise in temperatures.* That forcing occurs is well established; but over the short run, there would likely be (and has been) a phase where the mean temperature doesn't increase, but extremes do.
Posted by: James R MacLean on September 25, 2003 07:18 PMI grew up in the corridor linked to Riverside and the air pollution was so horrible that many days my eyes would sting painfully. The heavy, disgusting cloak of air-borne filth is an indelible memory I have of the Basin. The air pollution there and its more dangerous versions in Bangkok, Delhi, Mexico City, etc. are actually not related to CO2 but to emissions of SO2 and aerosolized metallics (tetraethyl- and tetramethyl-lead, especially in the 3rd World). What's even worse is the shit that leaks into the water table.
The problem of leaking fuel tanks is better known in California, IMO, because of California's combination of wealth and market power. And we had mandated oxidization of fuels in the late '80's, usually with a compound called MTBE, until it was discovered that MTBE was a really bad contaminant of ground water. So we're supposed to switch to ethanol. Very big problems with ethanol leaks into bodies of water! So it must be conceded that a huge effort needs to be launched to supercede the internal combustion engine with something less virulent.
Posted by: James R MacLean on September 25, 2003 07:34 PMAN EDITORIAL BY JEFF SMITH
AMERICANS HAVE TO WAKE UP AND SEE WHAT GEORGE BUSH IS DOING. UNDER THE GUISE OF FIGHTING TERRORISM HE IS POISED TO INVADE AND DOMINATE ALL THE OIL PRODUCING NATIONS OF THE MIDDLE EAST. NOW THAT IRAQ HAS BEEN SECURED THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION NOW STARTS THE RUMBLINGS THAT THERE IS TROUBLE IS SAUDI ARABIA. HE HAS SENT 3 CIA COVERT OPERATIONS INTO SAUDI ARABIA TO INSTIGATE A TERRORIST UPRISING FOR THE PURPOSE TO INVADE THIS COUNTRY AND SECURE THE OIL. YOU WILL SEE A COUPLE OF THINGS HAPPEN IN THE NEAR FUTURE, THE FIRST IS THERE WILL BE A (SO CALLED) GROWING PROBLEM IN SAUDI ARABIA THAT WILL BE REPORTED IN THE NEWSPAPERS AND ON TV, THEN THERE WILL BE AN ASSINATION OF THE ROYAL FAMILY BLAMED ON INTERNAL TERRORST BUT CARRIED OUT BY CIA OPERATIVES. THEN THERE WILL BE THE INVASION "TO RESTORE THE MONARCHY" BUT IN ACUTALITY TO SECURE THE SAUDI OIL FOR MR. BUSH AND HIS OIL COMPANY BUDDIES. IT WILL NOT STOP THERE, IRAN, KUWAIT AND THE REST OF THE OIL PRODUCING STATES IN THE MIDDLE EAST WILL FOLLOW. A LOT OF SO CALLED PATRIOTS WILL SAY "SO WHAT" I REPLY TO THAT THAT ALL OF THE OIL IN THAT REGION IS NOT WORTH ONE DEAD AMERICAN. AND NOW THERE IS TALK OF RE OPENING THE DRAFT IS THIS IS DONE IT MUST BE MET WITH ALL RESISTANCE POSSIBLE. BECAUSE WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THIS OIL? THE LIVES OF YOUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS WILL.
I AM A CONCERNED CITIZEN AGAINST THIS MILITARY ACTION AND WANTED TO SHARE MY FEELINGS. I MANAGE A KASH AND KARY FOOD STORE IN CENTRAL FLORIDA
nice site, you know
Posted by: Lolita! on October 14, 2003 04:55 PMi just think that bush is a totall dumbass whos gonna get us all killed
Posted by: julia on January 9, 2004 01:15 AMI just surfed around and found your site, I really enjoyed the visit and hope to come back soon. Greetings,