FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Bush censored climate change report. Obama releases it.





handfleisch
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091014/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_bush_global_warming_3/print

Quote:
Obama EPA releases Bush-era global warming finding
By DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Writer Dina Cappiello, Associated Press Writer Tue Oct 13, 10:00 pm ET

WASHINGTON – A controversial e-mail message buried by the Bush administration because of its conclusions on global warming surfaced Tuesday, nearly two years after it was first sent to the White House and never opened.

The e-mail and the 28-page document attached to it, released Tuesday by the Environmental Protection Agency, show that back in December of 2007 the agency concluded that six gases linked to global warming pose dangers to public welfare, and wanted to take steps to regulate their release from automobiles and the burning of gasoline.

The document specifically cites global warming's effects on air quality, agriculture, forestry, water resources and coastal areas as endangering public welfare.

That finding was rejected by the Bush White House, which strongly opposed using the Clean Air Act to address climate change and stalled on producing a so-called "endangerment finding" that had been ordered by the Supreme Court in 2007.

As a result, the Dec. 5 e-mail sent by the agency to Susan Dudley, who headed the regulatory division at the Office of Management and Budget was never opened, according to Jason Burnett, the former EPA official that wrote it.

The Bush administration, and then EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, also refused to release the document, which is labeled "deliberative, do not distribute" to Democratic lawmakers. The White House instead allowed three senators to review it in July 2008, when excerpts were released.

The Obama administration in April made a similar determination, but also concluded that greenhouse gases endanger public health. The EPA is currently drafting the first greenhouse gas standards for automobiles, and recently signaled it would attempt to reduce climate-altering pollution from refineries, factories and other large industrial sources.
jmi256
Man, these grasps at some last-ditch attempt to legitimize Obama's failures by bringing up Bush is getting ridiculous. So which is it? Was the email never opened or was this again the work of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" to censor the email? I mean really, so what?! So someone didn't open an email that tried to sell the idea of global warming. You can argue all day about the debate over whether global warming even exists. Or that mankind is somehow responsible even if you do make a case for global warming. But digging up an unopened email as an attack is plain stupid.

So we're in yet another "crisis," huh? Looks like the facts aren't going to help you sell that one.
Quote:

What happened to global warming?
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

Source = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm


And remember when all the fringe-left liberals were screaming up and down that the decline of the honey bee population was due to global warming? I recall similar cries then as the current fringe is now using. Good thing smart people didn't listen to these nuts and their "evidence" back then.
Quote:

Cure For Honey Bee Colony Collapse?
For the first time, scientists have isolated the parasite Nosema ceranae (Microsporidia) from professional apiaries suffering from honey bee colony depopulation syndrome. They then went on to treat the infection with complete success.

Source = http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090414084627.htm
deanhills
I guess actions usually speak much louder than words in the end, and the real question that needs to be asked and answered is specifically what Bills have been introduced during Bush's Presidency, and which ones got voted in and exactly what effect have they had? Ditto Obama. Obama's very strong criticism and intent to tackle environmental issues while he was campaigning for the Presidency is beginning to get foggy. He most certainly has not shown serious intent to tackle environmental issues, i.e. going head on head with industry on this one. He is as careful now as Bush has been, just much more skilful and diplomatic in his "not really dealing" with the issue.
Ophois
deanhills wrote:
He is as careful now as Bush has been, just much more skilful and diplomatic in his "not really dealing" with the issue.
Careful? Bush was anything but careful when it came to his treatment of environmental issues.

Quote:
President Bush nominates Mark Rey – a former logging industry lobbyist – to oversee the U.S. Forest Service as Under Secretary for
Natural Resources and Environment.
After serving 18 years as the logging industry’s principle lobbyist, Rey made his name in politics as
a staff member with the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee where he was the “key architect” (National Journal, 1997) of
the “logging without laws” Salvage Rider,” which the Washington Post called, “arguably the worst piece of public lands legislation
ever.” Under the Salvage Rider – with environmental laws suspended and meaningful pubic participation banned – enough trees were cut
from America’s national forests to fill log trucks lined up for over 6,800 miles!
More examples here.

I think Obama will be slightly better, but I don't hold out much hope for politicians on the environment, period. Not as long as they keep getting paid off by big industry, and as long as the environmental oversight positions keep getting filled with people whose background is in the very industry we are trying to protect the environment from.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
deanhills wrote:
He is as careful now as Bush has been, just much more skilful and diplomatic in his "not really dealing" with the issue.
Careful? Bush was anything but careful when it came to his treatment of environmental issues.
Right, I should rephrase that, as Bush has done next to nothing for the environment. At least Obama is talking about it, and talking about talks, however with all his energy absorbed in the health care bill and jetting to Denmark and one thing and another, he is not getting started on the actual deliberations about the environmental issues.

I did notice all the examples, but they aren't the kind that go real deep. The United States is one of the main contributors of pollution in the world, Presidents in history ad infinitum have been careful how they tackle this with the US industry. Obama has made some real loud noises, especially during his Presidential Campaign, and then some eloquent announcements that gives the impression that he cares, but that is obviously not near enough. It is almost symbolically the equivalent of the enormous debt, in trillions now. And someone going round to appoint someone to investigate how the United States can pay off the debt and then also deciding they may have a conference in December, but because there are so many other items on the agenda, such as spending more money on the Health Care Bill, they don't get to the Conference and have to postpone it again. By the way, what has happened to the Gitmo detainees? Another case of talking, and talking about talking, and postponing in order to give talking a little rest.
Ophois
deanhills wrote:
Right, I should rephrase that, as Bush has done next to nothing for the environment. At least Obama is talking about it, and talking about talks, however with all his energy absorbed in the health care bill and jetting to Denmark and one thing and another, he is not getting started on the actual deliberations about the environmental issues.

I did notice all the examples, but they aren't the kind that go real deep. The United States is one of the main contributors of pollution in the world, Presidents in history ad infinitum have been careful how they tackle this with the US industry. Obama has made some real loud noises, especially during his Presidential Campaign, and then some eloquent announcements that gives the impression that he cares, but that is obviously not near enough. It is almost symbolically the equivalent of the enormous debt, in trillions now. And someone going round to appoint someone to investigate how the United States can pay off the debt and then also deciding they may have a conference in December, but because there is so many other items on the agenda, such as spending more money on the Health Care Bill, they don't get to the Conference.
I wholeheartedly agree.
As with every politician, there's a bunch of drum beating, but no marching, as far as environmental issues are concerned. The Democrats want to do more about it than the Republicans(or so they say), but that doesn't mean zilch until they actually do something of any significance.
Related topics
Help Predict Climate Change
British Prime Minister Blames Floods on Climate Change
Climate change escalates Darfur crisis
Wolfowitz 'tried to censor World Bank on climate change'
Climate Change Bigwigs Tell Congress about Fudged Science
Many religious leaders back climate-change action
Climate Change/Global Warming
Australia’s Great Barrier Reef - Dealing with Climate Change
expose of Climate Change Denial lies
Education on Climate Change
Climate change
Climate change and politics
Advice for the IPCC climate change panel, from a contributor
Report : Climate change & serious errors of design .
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.