« Is All Publicity Good Publicity? | Main | Blair »
September 27, 2007
Flips and Flops on Global Warming
Via Dave Roberts, this timeline of Bush's various lies, obfuscations, stalls, and positions on climate change is rather interesting. At this point, he appears to be trying to run out the clock on his term, gumming any initiatives up in bureaucratic negotiations that will surely drag on past January of 2009. But it's worth noting what his more sophisticated dodges have been, namely, that the answer is technological innovation, and that we can't do anything till China and India do.
In reply, the innovation will accelerate when it needs to accelerate, which is when carbon-intensive technologies grow economically unfeasible. That's why we need some sort of cap or tax: Because that's the only policy capable of sufficiently supercharging and incentivizing innovation. And China and India aren't going to take any action till we do, and will need our help, and the technology we produce, to wean themselves off coal.
September 27, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Man, you missed it. Edwards finally pwned Clinton in a televised debate.
Posted by: Petey | Sep 27, 2007 1:36:14 AM
I always like Barney Frank's answer to the China & India thing: well, then put it in the trade agreement!
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Sep 27, 2007 2:11:24 AM
I never understood the China and India argument anyway -- it's like refusing to mow my lawn until my neighbor does.
Posted by: Jon Parker | Sep 27, 2007 8:22:29 AM
Seems to be the M.O. for Bush et al.: obfuscate and drag feet on issues of import until 'the next Administration comes along,' all the while lining the pockets of their supporters who have clear, vested interests in maintaining the status quo as long as is possible.
Posted by: terraformer | Sep 27, 2007 9:39:11 AM
I never understood the China and India argument anyway-- it's like refusing to mow my lawn until my neighbor does.
If the tall grass is causing a problem such as a flea infestation or neighborhood fire hazard, then it's a good argument, assuming your goal is to get rid of the fleas or cut the neighborhood fire risk. Cutting your grass alone while your neighbors do nothing will not change anything. There is no doubt that signing on to the global warming fight will make major changes in our economy and be very expensive and doing it alone (just like the flea analogy) will not make any difference.
Now, if the true goal is not so much global warming, but to subjugate the American economy to emerging nations and give them a comparative advantage in trade, then signing up for the global warming fight alone will meet the desired goal.
The question is do you really want to effect global warming, or do you simply wish the US to sign up for the fight.
Posted by: El Viajero | Sep 27, 2007 9:40:54 AM
I don't know about China, but India has been doing a lot of things right already. They are consciously improving forest preservation and are cutting down on electricity consumption. They have already moved wholesale into solar energy based heating for most domestic purposes (in big cities anyway), and are making giant strides in rainwater collection and water recycling. The whole Indo-US Nuclear deal is an effort to switch over from HydEl and coal to nuclear energy based electricity production (the people that say it is all about nuclear weapons are scaremongerers).
Of course, lots more needs to be done, and there is a tendency to go off the rails because of the bad influence exerted by the United States (too much corporatism), but seriously, Bush has to stop waiting for India.
Posted by: NEliberal | Sep 27, 2007 9:55:51 AM
If the tall grass is causing a problem such as a flea infestation or neighborhood fire hazard, then it's a good argument, assuming your goal is to get rid of the fleas or cut the neighborhood fire risk. Cutting your grass alone while your neighbors do nothing will not change anything. There is no doubt that signing on to the global warming fight will make major changes in our economy and be very expensive and doing it alone (just like the flea analogy) will not make any difference.
Do you not comprehend the concept of "leadership", or are you just generally not very bright?
Posted by: dan | Sep 27, 2007 3:27:48 PM
And what makes you think anyone will "follow"? Why would they when you are willing to give them a free ride?
Posted by: El Viajero | Sep 27, 2007 4:58:14 PM
As along as railroads generate significant profit and revenue from coal transportation, there will not be any dramatic shift from coal.
Posted by: Blue in ID | Sep 27, 2007 7:50:27 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
