# Bush coming around regarding global warming? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 4, 2007, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-coming-around-regarding-global-warming/406638 "2007-06-04T02:09:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-coming-around-regarding-global-warming/406638/1 "2007-06-04T02:09:36Z")
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070604/ap\_on\_re\_eu/g8\_summit](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070604/ap_on_re_eu/g8_summit) Is he just blowing smoke to appeal to some of the moderates who associate republicans with pollution and global warming? Or is he actually serious about committing to reduce the impact our industry makes on the planet? To me it sounds a lot like the time he got us all excited about going back to the moon and possibly establishing a permanent base there. All talk, no funding or support. What do you think? ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-coming-around-regarding-global-warming/406638/2 "2007-06-04T02:21:06Z")
Nobody’s even blowing smoke, they’re just telling the compliant journalists that they’re doing so. And the non-compliant ones are either reporting in the centre of Rostock, or nowhere to be seen. ---
**Author:** ![gatorman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/96bed5/32.png) [@gatorman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gatorman)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-coming-around-regarding-global-warming/406638/3 "2007-06-04T02:24:54Z")
Its amazing how some people still refuse this obvious outcome of global pollution. This is another disaster made only worse by the worst president in the American history… I really have no idea how some people would rather keep making and keep destroying the planet, its amazing how money can blind someone… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-coming-around-regarding-global-warming/406638/4 "2007-06-04T02:32:12Z")
I think Bush is a lame duck with little more than a year and half left in office. It doesn’t really matter what he thinks or doesn’t think about global warming, especially since the Dems won both houses of Congress in '08. We have a whole crop of presidential candidates who are now or soon will be putting forward their proposals, and we have a Democratic Congress that should be doing the same thing. I’m much more interested in what Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain have to say about the subject. We’re driving\* off into the future, and I only see Bush when I look in the rear view mirror. But if I had to guess, I’d say he is **really** happy to be not talking about Iraq. If Global Warming takes the focus off Iraq, then so be it. He knows none of his policies will ever see the light of day. \*In a zero emission vehicle, of course. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-coming-around-regarding-global-warming/406638/5 "2007-06-04T02:37:29Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I think Bush is a lame duck with little more than a year and half left in office. [/QUOTE] What?! You’re prepared to make excuses based around him being a ‘lame duck’? 18 months to sit around and not do stuff? ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-coming-around-regarding-global-warming/406638/6 "2007-06-04T02:38:55Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I think Bush is a lame duck with little more than a year and half left in office. It doesn’t really matter what he thinks or doesn’t think about global warming, especially since the Dems won both houses of Congress in '08. We have a whole crop of presidential candidates who are now or soon will be putting forward their proposals, and we have a Democratic Congress that should be doing the same thing. I’m much more interested in what Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain have to say about the subject. We’re driving\* off into the future, and I only see Bush when I look in the rear view mirror. But if I had to guess, I’d say he is **really** happy to be not talking about Iraq. If Global Warming takes the focus off Iraq, then so be it. He knows none of his policies will ever see the light of day. \*In a zero emission vehicle, of course. 🙂 [/QUOTE] I don’t know how much I agree about Bush’s ineffectiveness. Immigration reform got off the ground at least, and it was a HUGELY divisive plan he supported. I don’t think he’s ready to quit being the Deciderer yet. A year and a half is still a pretty long time. The whole Iraq thing could be finished one way or another before the elections (I know, it’s a long shot) and a lot of other political stuff could play out with major consequences, like the whole attorney firing fiasco. Anyway that was kind of a rant. The point is I still think there’s room for Bush to influence policy before his term is over. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-coming-around-regarding-global-warming/406638/7 "2007-06-04T02:44:57Z")
[QUOTE=Mosier] I don’t know how much I agree about Bush’s ineffectiveness. Immigration reform got off the ground at least, and it was a HUGELY divisive plan he supported. I don’t think he’s ready to quit being the Deciderer yet. A year and a half is still a pretty long time. The whole Iraq thing could be finished one way or another before the elections (I know, it’s a long shot) and a lot of other political stuff could play out with major consequences, like the whole attorney firing fiasco. Anyway that was kind of a rant. The point is I still think there’s room for Bush to influence policy before his term is over. [/QUOTE] But not to implement policy, and whatever he does is likely to be changed by his successor before it’s put in place. Same goes for immigration. That might actually be a harder issue to tackle, politically, than global warming. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-coming-around-regarding-global-warming/406638/8 "2007-06-04T04:02:09Z")
There are multiple levels of answer here: > [@](#): > > Is he just blowing smoke to appeal to some of the moderates who associate republicans with pollution and global warming? I don’t see why he would appeal to moderates at this late date. To what end? For what purpose? As for blowing smoke…well, I suppose John Mace’s assertion that this is a way to take the focus off of Iraq is plausable. > [@](#): > > Or is he actually serious about committing to reduce the impact our industry makes on the planet? Well…I think here we have to look at personal views vs political views. IMHO, personally Bush actually DOES believe in GW, and DOES want to (personally) reduce his carbon footprint, etc etc (I reason this by looking at what he has done in his personal life on his ranch for both of these theories). POLITICALLY I don’t think it matters one way or the other what Bush thinks…he’s a lame duck at this point and there is simply no way in hell he could push through a meaningful agenda to cut America’s overall carbon footprint…even if he wanted too (again, from a political perspective). Personally (there is that word again 🙂 ), I think that this is getting into Bush thinking about his ‘legacy’ and wanting to do something just for the hell of it…as a lame duck he doesn’t have to do or say anything to his base at this point if he doesn’t want too. What diff? He’s gone in a year and a half. By the same token, nothing he DOES say or do is really meaningful at this point (outside of Iraq perhaps)…so he can open this can of worms (for the Republican’s) all he wants without having to worry about his base. > [@](#): > > To me it sounds a lot like the time he got us all excited about going back to the moon and possibly establishing a permanent base there. All talk, no funding or support. What do you think? Pretty much exactly the same thing IMHO. The moon is something I think Bush is PERSONALLY in favor of, but just isn’t willing to carry the political water (even if there was any left in the well FOR him to carry 😛 ) to do more than lip services. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-coming-around-regarding-global-warming/406638/9 "2007-06-04T04:16:10Z")
Well, he’s still a Republican, and I assume wants to be succeeded by a Republican. I can see why he would want to take the sting off of the anti-environment aura surrounding the party, and all he has to do is say “we are aware of the problem and are discussing a solution” without actually doing anything important that would disturb the waters. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-coming-around-regarding-global-warming/406638/10 "2007-06-04T09:28:18Z")
It’s just a spoiler to head off the international UN process and it’s fooling no one. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-coming-around-regarding-global-warming/406638/11 "2007-06-04T14:08:51Z")
[QUOTE=tagos] It’s just a spoiler to head off the international UN process and it’s fooling no one. [/QUOTE] :dubious: Again I have to ask…why would Bush care? What do you suppose the UN can do about GW that it hasn’t already done…and why would Bush care one way or the other? -XT ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-coming-around-regarding-global-warming/406638/12 "2007-06-04T14:28:38Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] :dubious: Again I have to ask…why would Bush care? What do you suppose the UN can do about GW that it hasn’t already done…and why would Bush care one way or the other? -XT [/QUOTE] You are kidding right? Why does Bush prefer to go back to Square 1 with a US-led initiative rather than the US join an international process that is ongoing? It’s entirely in keeping with the Bush regime’s ‘do nothing about global warming that might hurt the US economy’ approach. And the UN isn’t able to ‘do’ anything about GW. Any more than it can wage wars. You do understand what the UN is? An international treaty organised in an international forum like the UN could do plenty though. We had one and Bush refused to sign up. Why, in your opinion if it’s no skin off his nose, won’t he play ball with the UN? [Lula rejects Bush move](http://www.guardian.co.uk/brazil/story/0,,2094754,00.html) > [@](#): > > Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, has flatly rejected President Bush’s proposals for parallel global negotiations to combat climate change, insisting that countries come to agreement at the United Nations, and not under US leadership. > > \ > > “The Brazilian position is clear cut,” Mr Lula said. "I cannot accept the idea that we have to build another group to discuss the same issues that were discussed in Kyoto and not fulfilled. > > “If you have a multilateral forum [the UN] that makes a democratic decision … then we should work to abide by those rules [rather than] simply to say that I do not agree with Kyoto and that I will develop another institution,” > > \ > > But Mr Lula, Brazil’s president since 2003, rebuked Mr Bush for seemingly sidestepping the UN and not taking its global responsibilities seriously. “I am open-minded about talking to President Bush … I will never refuse to discuss any idea, but we should respect the decisions made in the multilateral forums. It is the only thing we have all agreed on in a democratic way,” he said. “If the US is the country that most contributes with greenhouse gases, in the world, it should assume more responsibility to reduce emissions.” > > The German hosts of this week’s G8 summit at Heiligendamm have also flatly rejected the idea of creating a separate process to deal with climate change. Chancellor Angela Merkel called it “non-negotiable”. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-coming-around-regarding-global-warming/406638/13 "2007-06-04T14:36:35Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I think Bush is a lame duck with little more than a year and half left in office. It doesn’t really matter what he thinks or doesn’t think about global warming, especially since the Dems won both houses of Congress in '08. [/quote] True, but if he were willing to grapple with global warming in a genuine way now, he and the Dems could negotiate a deal that would get through Congress, get signed, and become law _now_ rather than in 2009. I dunno if that ‘tipping point’ is really 10 years away or not, but time really is of the essence here. With respect to CO2 reductions, the next two years shouldn’t be pissed away if we can help it. But of course all the noises out of Bush’s mouth on the subject are a form of stallball. By making a chunk of the electorate think he’s going to address the problem, people think our leaders are dealing with the problem and they don’t have to think about it, which gives him the political room to kick the can down the road to the next Administration, which is his goal. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-coming-around-regarding-global-warming/406638/14 "2007-06-04T14:44:19Z")
[QUOTE=tagos] You are kidding right? Why does Bush prefer to go back to Square 1 with a US-led initiative rather than the US join an international process that is ongoing? It’s entirely in keeping with the Bush regime’s ‘do nothing about global warming that might hurt the US economy’ approach. And the UN isn’t able to ‘do’ anything about GW. Any more than it can wage wars. You do understand what the UN is? [/QUOTE] Um…why are you basically restating the point I was making? Did you READ what I wrote? Lets go through it again (and to be fair, in more detail): You asserted “It’s just a spoiler to head off the international UN process and it’s fooling no one.” I basically said why would Bush care. Then you posted the above…basically restating my original point…why would Bush care? Its pretty clear he doesn’t respect the UN. From your own post above there isn’t anything the UN can do to the US to force us to do anything we don’t choose to do. I don’t see the value (or logic for that matter) in Bush doing this as a ‘spolier to head off the international UN process’. Maybe you could explain in more detail what you think that statement means to you (since I am not following you in light of the above post)? And yeah…I’m well aware of what the UN is and is not. 😛 I’m ALSO well aware of how the UN is looked upon by a large percentage of Bush’s base…and probably by Bush and his administration (at least based on their actions toward the organization to date). -XT ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-coming-around-regarding-global-warming/406638/15 "2007-06-04T16:00:43Z")
[QUOTE=tagos] It’s just a spoiler to head off the international UN process and it’s fooling no one. [/QUOTE] That’s what [German Chancellor Merkel](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/04/AR2007060400105.html) seems to think. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-coming-around-regarding-global-warming/406638/16 "2007-06-04T16:02:35Z")
[QUOTE=tagos] An international treaty organised in an international forum like the UN could do plenty though. We had one and Bush refused to sign up. [/QUOTE] In the United States the President can’t ratify treaties. He can sign them, but they do not become ratified until the Senate votes to ratify. We _already had a vote_ on Kyoto before Bush ever was elected, during the Clinton Administration, and it was defeated something like 97-2, such was its lack of viability. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-coming-around-regarding-global-warming/406638/17 "2007-06-04T16:11:03Z")
Actually I looked it up. The Byrd-Hagel Resolution passed in the Senate 95-0, stating that the United States should not be a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol because it did not include binding targets and timetables, because it would seriously harm the economy of the U.S., and because it granted exemptions to countries like China. In light of such an overwhelming rejection of the Protocol Clinton never even bothered to send it to the Senate, and neither has Bush. Considering one of the person’s whose name is on that resolution (Senator Byrd) is the most senior Democrat in the Senate and one of the few Senate Dems who voted against the authorization for force in Iraq, as well as one of the few who opposed the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security, I’m not really sure Bush has ever had much of a chance of getting the treaty ratified. It was overwhelmingly opposed by Democrats (including very liberal Democrats) and Republicans and I don’t think the composition of the Senate has remotely changed enough to make its passage viable. In response to the OP, it doesn’t really seem to me that Bush is “coming around” regarding global warming. I’ve never seen evidence he’s a “global warming denier”, just that he felt the Kyoto Protocol would put an undue burden on the economy of the United States and that as long as it exempted China (IIRC now the world’s largest CO2 emitter) it was a flawed treaty. In fact Bush said this about the treaty awhile ago (this was a few years before China took over as the top CO2 emitter): > [@](#): > > This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world’s. The world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People’s Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto … America’s unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change … Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-coming-around-regarding-global-warming/406638/18 "2007-06-04T17:17:26Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] I’ve never seen evidence he’s a “global warming denier”, just that he felt the Kyoto Protocol would put an undue burden on the economy of the United States and that as long as it exempted China (IIRC now the world’s largest CO2 emitter) it was a flawed treaty. [/QUOTE] I could buy that, if sometime during the 76 months Bush has been in the White House, he’d had his people craft an alternative to Kyoto, and tried to persuade other nations to go along with his formula for containing CO2 production. It’s one thing to say, “let’s not do X,” and propose no alternatives, if X is a solution in search of a consequential problem. But global warming, by Bush’s own admission, IS a consequential problem - just one it doesn’t feel like doing anything about, other than tsking Kyoto. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-coming-around-regarding-global-warming/406638/19 "2007-06-04T17:18:45Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] I could buy that, if sometime during the 76 months Bush has been in the White House, he’d had his people craft an alternative to Kyoto, and tried to persuade other nations to go along with his formula for containing CO2 production. [/QUOTE] Supposedly that is to be the purpose of this conference. Better late than never. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-coming-around-regarding-global-warming/406638/20 "2007-06-04T17:23:34Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] I could buy that, if sometime during the 76 months Bush has been in the White House, he’d had his people craft an alternative to Kyoto, and tried to persuade other nations to go along with his formula for containing CO2 production. It’s one thing to say, “let’s not do X,” and propose no alternatives, if X is a solution in search of a consequential problem. But global warming, by Bush’s own admission, IS a consequential problem - just one it doesn’t feel like doing anything about, other than tsking Kyoto. [/QUOTE] That’s sort of like saying if x congressman was really against x they’d be proposing legislation. Beating your heard against the wall isn’t a virtue. The Kyoto Protocol is a sacred cow at the UN, what are the realistic chances the UN is going to accept a Bush alternative? Shit, they’re already dismissing his attempt to do just what you ask right now, apparently that 76 months was better spent doing other things, the UN isn’t interested in his alternatives, why should he try? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-coming-around-regarding-global-warming/406638.md?page=2)