# The US recognizes the consequences of global warming, but won't do anything about it. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 4, 2002, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-recognizes-the-consequences-of-global-warming-but-wont-do-anything-about-it/112318 "2002-06-04T05:37:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![David\_Weman\_cdw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bcef8e/32.png) [@David\_Weman\_cdw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Weman_cdw)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2002, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-recognizes-the-consequences-of-global-warming-but-wont-do-anything-about-it/112318/1 "2002-06-04T05:37:16Z")
From today’s New York Times: [http://www.iht.com/articles/60094.htm](http://www.iht.com/articles/60094.htm) > [@](#): > > NEW YORK In a stark shift for the Bush administration, the United States has sent a climate report to the United Nations detailing specific and far-reaching effects that it says global warming will inflict on the American environment. > > In the report, the administration also for the first time places most of the blame for recent global warming on human actions - mainly the burning of fossil fuels that send heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. > > But while the report says the United States will be substantially changed in the next few decades - “very likely” seeing the disruption of snow-fed water supplies, more stifling heat waves and the permanent disappearance of Rocky Mountain meadows and coastal marshes, for example - it does not propose any major shift in the administration’s policy on greenhouse gases. > > Instead, it recommends adapting to inevitable changes instead of making rapid and drastic reductions in greenhouse gases to limit warming, which is the approach favored by many environmental groups and countries seeking to enact the Kyoto Protocol, a climate treaty written during the Clinton administration that was rejected by Bush. > [@](#): > > Late last week, after it was posted on the Web site of the Environmental Protection Agency, private environmental groups pounced on it, saying it pointed to a jarring disconnect between the administration’s findings on a problem and proposed solutions. > > “The Bush administration now admits that global warming will change America’s most unique wild places and wildlife forever,” said Mark Van Putten, the president of the National Wildlife Federation, a private environmental group. “How can it acknowledge global warming is a disaster in the making and then refuse to help solve the problem, especially when solutions are so clear?” So, they no longer argue we should wait until we know more, they simply don’t think we should do anything. What are your reactions? ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2002, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-recognizes-the-consequences-of-global-warming-but-wont-do-anything-about-it/112318/2 "2002-06-04T15:50:25Z")
I took it as, The U.S. government now acknowledges that global warming is being done by man’s hand, and it’s damaging the environment. And NOW we will see how policies shift in light of this acknowlegement. There is the potential for [very real and very serious economic damage](http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/economic.htm) as this problem is fixed. I’m sure changes will be gradual, with this concern in mind. Raising of CAFE standards, more clean-burning mass transit in urban centers, and on from there. Business and industry will likely be very resistant. It will be interesting to see how it plays out from here. Anyone proposing “making rapid and drastic reductions in greenhouse gases to limit warming, which is the approach favored by many environmental groups and countries seeking to enact the Kyoto Protocol,” without weighing the potential economic impact of same, doesn’t deserve too much credence, in my opinion. Oh, and I love how Kyoto is referred to as, “a climate treaty written during the Clinton administration that was rejected by Bush.” Yeah, Clinton sure fought tooth-and-nail for Kyoto, didn’t he? And it’s nice to know the treaty was “rejected by Bush,” not the entire United States Senate. Methinks I detect a slant. ---
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2002, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-recognizes-the-consequences-of-global-warming-but-wont-do-anything-about-it/112318/3 "2002-06-04T18:05:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Anyone proposing “making rapid and drastic reductions in greenhouse gases to limit warming, which is the approach favored by many environmental groups and countries seeking to enact the Kyoto Protocol,” without weighing the potential economic impact of same, doesn’t deserve too much credence, in my opinion. But anyone only weighing the short-term costs of reducing CO2 emissions without also weighing the long-term benefits also does not deserve too much credence. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2002, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-recognizes-the-consequences-of-global-warming-but-wont-do-anything-about-it/112318/4 "2002-06-04T18:10:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > And NOW we will see how policies shift in light of this acknowlegement. I was going to quip “don’t hold your breath,” until I realized that’s precisely what we’re going to have to do. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2002, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-recognizes-the-consequences-of-global-warming-but-wont-do-anything-about-it/112318/5 "2002-06-04T19:04:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > \*\*Oh, and I love how Kyoto is referred to as, “a climate treaty written during the Clinton administration that was rejected by Bush.” > > Yeah, Clinton sure fought tooth-and-nail for Kyoto, didn’t he? And it’s nice to know the treaty was “rejected by Bush,” not the entire United States Senate. > > Methinks I detect a slant. \*\* Yeah, not to mention the [Byrd-Hagel](http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html)resolution, passed by the Senate in 1997, which basically told Clinton, “We recommend you don’t sign it, and even if you do sign it, we won’t ratify it.” Byrd-Hagel passed the Senate, 95-0. But “rejected by Bush” makes a way better sound bite, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Tygr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/df788c/32.png) [@Tygr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tygr)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2002, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-recognizes-the-consequences-of-global-warming-but-wont-do-anything-about-it/112318/6 "2002-06-04T19:31:02Z")
“Methinks I detect a slant.” From the New York Times? Surely not… “But anyone only weighing the short-term costs of reducing CO2 emissions without also weighing the long-term benefits also does not deserve too much credence.” Too bad [he’s](http://www.cato.org/people/michaels.html) already [testified](http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998.html) to that effect many times [before Congress](http://www.house.gov/science/patrick_michaels.htm), then. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2002, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-recognizes-the-consequences-of-global-warming-but-wont-do-anything-about-it/112318/7 "2002-06-05T05:01:23Z")
Ah, backstep … **Bush dismisses EPA report on climate change** _WASHINGTON (AP) – President Bush on Tuesday dismissed a report put out by his administration warning that climate changes caused by human activity could have significant effects on the environment._ Source: [http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/04/bush.climate.change.ap/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/04/bush.climate.change.ap/index.html) In short, Bush blames the “bureaucracy” for issuing the report. As president, he dismisses it and nothing will come of the report. End of story. Addendum - Anyone willing to speculate that the individual(s) responsible for releasing the report will be reassigned, if not fired? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2002, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-recognizes-the-consequences-of-global-warming-but-wont-do-anything-about-it/112318/8 "2002-06-05T05:11:09Z")
It seems paradoxical, but even if human activities cause global warming, it does NOT automatically follow that GW can be ended by changing human behavior. There are practices that people will be unwilling to give up, even though doing so would lead to a better world. E.g., the single human activity that contributes the most to pollution and global warming is sex. ---
**Author:** ![the\_great\_dalmuti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b2d939/32.png) [@the\_great\_dalmuti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_great_dalmuti)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2002, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-recognizes-the-consequences-of-global-warming-but-wont-do-anything-about-it/112318/9 "2002-06-05T05:28:27Z")
Well, actually, the human activity that contributes the most to global warming is: shopping. Getting the raw materials for, developing, making, shipping, packaging, and selling _stuff_ is the biggest culprit. Sure, we can’t really not buy things. But, you have to admit that we could buy a heck of a lot less, and still get by fairly well. What can we do about this? The average person is fairly removed from being able to do much. Write your representatives and your senators. Buy less. Stop eating meat. (Had to get that in, but it’s true.) Write the president. Walk or take the bus instead of driving. I’d like to point out that the scope of this thread is to determine why the US isn’t doing anything about the obvious problem of Global Warming. It’s not about who we blame for the fact. It’s beside the point to blame congress, or Bush, or Clinton. It’s not making Global Warming less of a problem. And it is a serious problem. I’m really curious to know what others think. -TGD