Carbon Emissions Soar. Will Bush Take Responsibility Again?

Take a few days off and the whole world goes to hell. In this case, literally. No, I don't mean the financial crisis, though I have no interest in looking at my 401(k) balance right now.

I'm talking about the new global carbon emissions figures released last week, which show a shockingly steep rise:

The new numbers, called "scary" by some, were a surprise because scientists thought an economic downturn would slow energy use. Instead, carbon dioxide output jumped 3 percent from 2006 to 2007. That's an amount that exceeds the most dire outlook for emissions from burning coal and oil and related activities as projected by a Nobel Prize-winning group of international scientists in 2007.

Meanwhile, forests and oceans, which suck up carbon dioxide, are doing so at lower rates than in the 20th century, scientists said. If those trends continue, it puts the world on track for the highest predicted rises in temperature and sea level.

The pollution leader was China, followed by the United States, which past data show is the leader in emissions per person in carbon dioxide output. And while several developed countries slightly cut their CO2 output in 2007, the United States churned out more. [...]

Emissions in the United States rose nearly 2 percent in 2007, after declining the previous year. The U.S. produced 1.75 billion tons of carbon (1.58 billion metric tons).

As soon as we learned US emissions fell slightly last year, President Bush immediately held a news conference and issued a gloating statement taking credit for the fall. I'm still waiting for the news conference and statement admitting he was wrong.

Scientists say we need to be cutting carbon emissions two percent a year. Instead, they rose three percent globally and two percent here in the US.

The richest country in the world that should be taking the lead on energy-efficient technology. Instead, we're leading the way in race to the bottom, and the Bush administration and its Republican allies are leading the way.

Bush's EPA Rewrites Clean Air Standards "Based on the Interests of Polluters"

Some presidents would react to news their popularity was at a historic low by trying to do things that were, y'know, popular. Not President Bush. He's apparently decided to take the opposite approach, instead trying to set a new low for popularity that will stand the test of time, much like the consecutive games streak of Cal Ripken, Jr.

This should help:

The Environmental Protection Agency yesterday limited the allowable amount of pollution-forming ozone in the air to 75 parts per billion, a level significantly higher than what the agency's scientific advisers had urged for this key component of unhealthy air pollution.

Administrator Stephen L. Johnson also said he would push Congress to rewrite the nearly 37-year-old Clean Air Act to allow regulators to take into consideration the cost and feasibility of controlling pollution when making decisions about air quality, something that is currently prohibited by the law. In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that the government needed to base the ozone standard strictly on protecting public health, with no regard to cost. [...]

With Democrats in control of Congress, the proposal to rewrite the Clean Air Act appears to face long odds. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) called the move "outrageous," adding in a statement, "The Bush Administration would have us replace clean air standards driven by science with standards based on the interests of polluters."

Here in Virginia, even the new weak Bush standard would mean Richmond, Hampton Roads, Roanoke, and outer DC suburbs Caroline and Stafford Counties will be in violation.

Of course, none of this affects us here in Northern Virginia. We haven't met federally required ozone limits for nearly 20 years. And we're adding lanes of highway. Why start now?

Bush: Polar Bears Disappearing? Sell Their Homes to Big Oil!

Few species are as threatened by climate change as the polar bear:

Polar bears are considered marine mammals because they depend on sea ice for hunting seals, but they den on land. As sea ice has retreated, polar bears must swim farther and expend more energy to reach it.

A U.S. Geological Survey study issued this summer found that in the next 50 years, shrinking sea ice will leave only a small population of polar bears in the islands of the Canadian Arctic. Two-thirds of the world's polar bears, including those along the coasts of Alaska and Russia, are projected to disappear.

So when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was faced with a January 9th deadline to on whether to list polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, it took swift action, right?

Of course not. This is the Bush administration. That's not how they roll.

The Fish and Wildlife Service postponed the decision for a month -- in an amazing coincidence, just enough time for the Minerals Management Service to sneak in yesterday's oil and gas lease sale in prime polar bear habitat:

The Interior Department yesterday announced $2.6 billion in winning bids from companies seeking to drill for oil and gas in Alaska's Chukchi Sea despite protests from environmental groups and members of Congress that oil and gas exploration would endanger polar bears.

Companies made 667 bids for 448 tracts in the 29 million-acre area north of Point Barrow. The winning bids included a record-breaking $105.3 million offer by Shell Oil for one three-by-three-mile leasehold, almost twice as much as the previous high bid for a single offshore U.S. tract.

Now that those leases are all squared away, the Fish and Wildlife Service will likely make a decision on the polar bear in the next few days.

You can tell the Bush administration you're outraged about the decision, but honestly, what good will it do? The Bush administration long ago decided to leave a legacy of using its public office to line the pockets of friends and thwart any efforts to hold it accountable, while passing problems like Iraq, the national debt, and climate change on to the next administration.

Bush's Final SOTU: One Last Blast of Hot Air on Global Warming

Today I'm going to try for the rare pre-work, pre-coffee blog post. Short and likely not sweet. Buckle up.

So this guy gave this big speech down the street last night:

Together we should take the next steps: Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. (Applause.) Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions-free nuclear power. (Applause.) Let us continue investing in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future. (Applause.) Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources. And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases. (Applause.)

After that last line, a couple of friends at the Arlington Young Democrats State of the Union watching party turned around and gave me the Fonzie. Bush said he supported an international agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions, right? Awesome!

Unfortunately with Bush you have to pay attention not just to what he says, but the loopholes he leaves himself. An agreement that has the potential to cut greenhouse gas emissions (no mandatory caps). And then it got worse:

This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride. (Applause.) The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change. And the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more energy-efficient technology. (Applause.)

Every economy. So if Turkey won't act, neither will we. And isn't the White House helpful to point out when people applauded? It's like the State of the Union with a laugh track.

How far have we come on regulating our greenhouse gas emissions since Bush's last State of the Union address? Since then, as ThinkProgress via Gristmill points out, Bush has blocked progress on many of the very topics he mentioned last night.

OK. Coffee's ready. And this thing isn't worth any more of our time.

Colbert: Bush Has "Glacier-Sized Balls - PRE-Global Warming!"

"Mr. President, for leading us to a bold commitment to finalize a goal for future possible action to solve global warming, you, sir, are my Alpha Dog of the Week."

Via Dan Froomkin

President Bush: Sure, I Care About Global Warming!

"Sure, I love you, baby! Like I love Fresca!"

-- Actor Troy McClure on The Simpsons trying to explain to his fiance that he's not heterosexual


Along much the same lines, President Bush today tried to convince all of us that he cares about global warming ... just not in that way:

President Bush assured the rest of the world today that he takes climate change seriously and vowed that the United States "will do its part" in crafting "a new international approach" to reduce the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet. However, he proposed no new initiatives to do so.

Addressing a Washington conference of major economic powers, Bush said "the moment is now" to find a broad consensus on how to confront the challenge of climate change. "I want to get the job done," he told hundreds of envoys, lobbyists and activists. "We have identified a problem; let's go solve it together."

His much-anticipated address, though, was more a defense of his own record on the issue than a concrete roadmap for future action. Bush said he wants to reach agreement with other heads of state by next summer on a long-term goal for reducing emissions, an accord that would allow different nations to decide how to meet targets. He touted technology as the ultimate solution, ignoring calls for mandatory limits on emissions.

President Bush's refusal to embrace mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions has left him so far behind the debate on this issue, you can't even say he's siding with big business against environmentalists. That's because dozens of big businesses are endorsing mandatory cuts.

The U.S. Climate Action Partnership includes Alcoa, DuPont, General Electric, General Motors, PepsiCo, and even oil companies like ConocoPhillips and Shell. President Bush's refusal to embrace mandatory cuts in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence and growing corporate support is simply inexplicable.

Bush's Global Warming Strategy: Gum It to Death

A new climate report out this morning from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that in the next century, temperatures will rise, droughts will worsen, and floods will become more prevalent. Here in America, the report is especially dire for the hurricane-prone Southeast and the already-arid Southwest.

But the Bush administration seems less concerned about protecting its citizens from disaster than with looking out for its oil interests:

The United States, China and Saudi Arabia raised the most objections to the phrasing, most often seeking to tone down the certainty of some of the more dire projections.

The lead U.S. official at the meeting, Sharon Hays, said climate change is a global challenge that needs more study.

"Science in this area is evolving. Determination of the certainty that scientists can place any particular finding is important," she said. Pressed to describe changes sought by the U.S., Hayes would only say, "Every aspect of this report generated discussion."

The science of global warming has been clear for years -- it's not evolving any more than the Bush administration's denials of reality. There's very little difference between the above quote and this one:

"Global warming needs to be taken very seriously, and I take it seriously. But science, there's a lot -- there's differing opinions. And before we react, I think it's best to have the full accounting, full understanding of what's taking place."

That was presidential candidate George W. Bush on October 11, 2000. Nearly seven years later, Bush and friends are still studying the issue. Just last month, the undersecretary of the Energy Dept. offered only a halting admission of man's role in global warming.

But that's exactly the strategy the Bush White House takes on this and many other issues -- don't act, just talk until it goes away. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, spelled it out in the middle of the U.S. attorney scandal:

"I think we should gum this to death," Sampson wrote, and after rattling off a list of stalling tactics, added: "All of this should be done in 'good faith,' of course."

Our only hope is that Congress can pass strong, uncompromising legislation to combat global warming by tightening fuel efficiency standards, taxing carbon emissions, and encouraging development of new technology. President Bush can choose to veto it. After all, he is the decider. But for a president who is so concerned about his legacy, it would be a huge blow to leave a vetoed climate change bill as one of his last major acts.

You can help tell Congress that we don't need a watered-down compromise. Come to a Step It Up 2007 rally to mark the National Day of Climate Action on April 14th. It's time to send a message to Washington that we won't accept inaction any longer.