"U.S. EPA released a long-sequestered document on global warming today showing the George W. Bush administration had concluded in December 2007 that greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles were endangering public welfare and needed to be regulated under the Clean Air Act."
This is how the New York Times opens its article yesterday.
Furthermore:
"This draft finding demonstrates that in 2007 the science was as clear as it is today," EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said. "The conclusions reached then by EPA scientists should have been made public and should have been considered."
The original endangerment finding document was written by Jason Burnett, a top adviser to then-EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson. According to the Times article,
"There was a lot of political pressure during the Bush administration to suppress it after they decided to change course," Burnett said today. "It didn't support their new position."
Links to the full Bush endangerment report and the current Obama endangerment report can both be found in the NYT article linked here.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 51
I will just sit back and watch to see what they say.
Besides, we should probably be shunning the Chinese and Indians instead of right-wing conservatives. There's over a billion Chinese people and only about 500 right-wingers in the U.S. So who's doing the damage?
That being said, the 30-40 left wing nut-jobs in this country need to shut-up and let Obama try and do his job.
China and India are definitely a large part of the equation. If they don't also take steps then what we do won't be enough. But they are taking those steps (China moreso), and even though they seem to be baby steps at this point, they are more than we have done to date. The good news is that the US and China are talking to each other to coordinate our efforts as much as possible. That's a good thing.
And I agree that we all need to be focused on making things happen, even if they aren't exactly what we would prefer, as long as they are the most effective way to start doing something sooner rather than later.
There are scientists who interpret information differently. And some things needs to be done.
That being said, there are scientists lecturing that cows flatulating are a problem and greatly affects the environment. And they're kooks.
Someone could make the case that aggressively aborting children, pets and wild animals would be better for the planet. That doesn't mean we should do it.
Which is why we can't rely on just one study. And why the scientific consensus is based on the sum total of all of the studies by all of the scientists, including those that consider themselves skeptics. The difference is that the sum total of all the studies leads overwhelmingly to the conclusion that we are affecting climate change. Whereas the skeptics like to think that any one study they can cherry pick invalidates all the rest of the data.
That being said, there are scientists lecturing that cows flatulating are a problem and greatly affects the environment. And they're kooks.
Well, I'm sure there are kooks out there, but cows flatulate a lot (because of their unique multiple stomach system that led to the idea of "chewing their cud"). And the gas they flatulate is methane, which is actually quite a bit stronger as a greenhouse gas then carbon dioxide. But clearly the problem is man-made greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide but others as well, because of the vast amounts of it our modern industrial societies pump out.
Someone could make the case that aggressively aborting children, pets and wild animals would be better for the planet. That doesn't mean we should do it.
Obviously reduced population would offset some of the problem, but as you say telling people not to procreate isn't usually a viable option (even China's "one-child" policy hasn't actually limited families to one child). But there are things that we can do, and the most important one is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. To do this effectively we need to shift to non-emitting resources. Not an easy task, mind you, but a doable one.
Most scientists agree that cows flatulating release carbon admissions. It's absurd to say we should do something about it.
People release carbon admissions when they toot. Should we fine people if we catch them doing it in public?
"Obviously reduced population would offset some of the problem, but as you say telling people not to procreate isn't usually a viable option"
That's a dangerous mindset. If I had to decide between aborting innocent millions of babies or saving the planet, I'd let the planet die and take all the kids to Disney and party like it's 1999.
People release carbon admissions when they toot. Should we fine people if we catch them doing it in public?
I'm not sure I understand. I never said we should regulate flatulence, and it isn't the main focus of any policy options I've heard about. I suppose there are people out there who recognize the contribution, but not looking to it as a panacea. Still, I bet if someone invented a way to capture the gases and use them for fuel or heating, they would become very rich innovators. And that's what we need, some innovative thinking.
That's a dangerous mindset. If I had to decide between aborting innocent millions of babies or saving the planet, I'd let the planet die and take all the kids to Disney and party like it's 1999.
Which is why no one is suggesting it.
I've seen people refer to the problem of cows flatulating and even suggesting we tax farmers a gas tax. There's a slippery slope and if we allow our government to do something so foolish, it will grant them a license to carry on down a similarly ridiculous path.
Here's a link to a story in New Zealand. But I've seen it discussed here, too.
Are you getting confused on purpose? My comment above was about your suggestion regarding aborting babies, which is an idiotic idea that no one is suggesting. Your further comments conflate it with your separate idea about taxing bovine flatulence.
I've seen people refer to the problem of cows flatulating and even suggesting we tax farmers a gas tax. There's a slippery slope and if we allow our government to do something so foolish, it will grant them a license to carry on down a similarly ridiculous path.
It's one idea being discussed. So what? Even if something like that did get passed why would it be foolish? It's a source. Should we ignore one source of methane release because it sounds distasteful?
Frankly, it's not the major focus of any policy being discussed. And it's irrelevant to the point of this post, which is that Bush EPA also agreed that GHGs from mobile sources needed to be regulated.
And this is why scientists, and the general public, need to stand up for science, and stand up for honesty.
The last I saw India said it was not going to do anything with man made co output but I think they will be forced to by public opinion, know matter how big they get in manufacturing it will not do them any good if people stop buying their products.
America has done little to slow our carbon emissions while many countries have started reducing their carbon output.
The deniers are a small group mainly filled with propaganda by the GOP that continually play up the crony game for profit.
Their are also many American companies that have signed onto the green revolution and these are going to be the leaders and big money companies of the future while the hold out go down hill.
Definitely. The smart money is on "green" business. I did a post on it a while back.
Green Businesses Now Generate More Revenue Than the Aerospace and Defense Sectors Combined
So tell me, have you seen any global warming lately? (Say within the past few years?)
Let’s think of other G.W. Bush things; oh yes weapons of mass destruction.
CO2 causes global warming & weapons of mass destruction
Enough said
What exactly did you say, Christopher?
Do you deny that GW Bush's endangerment finding was that we need to regulate GHGs? Feel free to disagree with Burnett's views since he's just the guy who wrote the report and felt it was suppressed. That's just his opinion. But the Bush administration felt that GHGs from motor vehicles was a problem and something needed to be done. He just chose not to do it.
As the EPA spokeswoman said, "This draft finding demonstrates that in 2007 the science was as clear as it is today."
The science isn't the problem, the willingness to take action is the problem.
The fact that man is the only source responsible for global warming is also being proven wrong, except by agendized scientists, and environmental groups. Al Gores movie has No Less than 9 blatantly false statements. You can not call something a fact when a there is such a large amount of the scientific community arguing against it.
Nobody ever said that man is the ONLY source (see the cow example above), just the most significant source and the one thing we can do something about. You've misrepresented the point in an effort to deflect from the subject of the post.
You can not call something a fact when a there is such a large amount of the scientific community arguing against it.
Again a misrepresentation, not to mention a lapse of logic and a non sequitur. The sum of ALL climate change science had led to the overwhelming conclusion that man-made CO2 emissions are significantly contributing to climate change. Do some people disagree? Sure. But it's a small percentage, most of who seem to be associated with non-scientific free market groups who are opposed to any of the possible policy options. Go figure.
Even George W. Bush's own EPA had determined that GHGs from motor vehicles were a danger. He simply chose not to act on it.
Left-wing nut-jobs lose credibility when they don't want to give Bush credit for anything - just like the right-wing nut-jobs forfeit credibility when they won't give Obama credit for anything positive - like sticking it out in Afghanistan, not closing GITMO before we can come up with a valid alternative and at least making an affort to insure all Americans, even if none of the plans are perfect.
That would be interesting to hear.
As the post states, the Bush EPA came to the same conclusion in 2007 that the Obama EPA has come to in 2009 regarding the need to regulate GHGs from mobile sources. Bush chose not to follow through, and based on the opinion of the report's author, actually suppressed it.
I agree that the extreme wings tend to see everything as black and white. We need to be working together to address the major issues of the country, which is why we elect our representatives to do. Both they and us forget that.
Bush wasn't an odd character. He was a moderate. And that's why everyone hated him. He spent more on education than any other president, gave more aid to Africa than any other preisdent, and argued for immigration reform. Yet he's vilified by the angry left.
50 years from now Bush will be looked upon like a 2nd Lyndon Johnson, who is steadily climbing in presidential ranking polls.
As Erik suggests, history will decide how it will treat GW Bush. I'm not sure Lyndon Johnson is a very high bar to shoot for, but in any case it will be up to the future to determine where he falls on the continuum. Myths grow, though not all myths grow in the direction the president desires. Time will tell.
In all fairness, this is true for others as well. In the case of my post, the issue is that science is telling us we have a real problem, and dealing with it shouldn't be something half the base hates. They can argue about the best policy option, but not about the need for there to be a policy.
I agree David. I wish all did. But some figure the best way to prevent the solution would be to obfuscate the situation's realities. Inaction will thereby buy them another year or two in their comfort zone at the cost of their great grandkid's future.
The study was done by a seperate department of the government without any influence from the Bush cabinet.
Just because it was released during his term definitely doesn not mean that president Bush himself had anything to do with it.
Let me ask you, Why are you now bringing this up? Wouldn't this have been a big story back then?
Remember, his acceptance of lax environmental measures on GHG emmitance from corporations was a sticking point for liberals. This study was a thorn in his side and that is why it was swept under the rug.
Yes, the study was done by the EPA. Bush chose not to release it.
Let me ask you, Why are you now bringing this up? Wouldn't this have been a big story back then?
Because it was released today. We didn't know about it back then because Bush chose not to release it.
Remember, his acceptance of lax environmental measures on GHG emmitance from corporations was a sticking point for liberals. This study was a thorn in his side and that is why it was swept under the rug.
Based on my understanding of the situation, including personal information from within the EPA, your interpretation is consistent.
I think even he would laugh at that.
Bush was a big supporter of regulation; financial, personal, and otherwise. Why would it surprise anyone he liked the idea of more government power?
Bush was also probably the lowest ranking President ever on Intelligence.. So I don't believe anything he says.
Also, Bush was not a conservative, but a power hungry globalist with a flawed ideology which involved him becoming more powerful instead of less powerful.
Bush was probably more liberal economically than Bill Clinton