Recent Comment
Share
The political world is abuzz with rumors that Bush will admit global warming exists and is caused by human action. But there aren't a lot of people asking what that admission would actually mean.
George Bush did a marvelous job of outlining America's addiction to oil in his last state of the union address. We got a sound byte, and a seeming national consensus. But nothing happened. Bush didn't outline a plan to reduce our dependence on oil. If anything, talk of oil addiction has been reduced.
I'm no political analyst, but I'd like to know what the effect of a climate-change-related admission from Bush would have? Would it change the minds of his followers? Would it be outlined along with a post-kyoto strategy? Would it serve to increase Bush's job-approval rating?
In the end, mentioning a problem may actually decrease public concern, but it will not decrease actual risk. As that seems to have been George's strategy for our addiction to oil (decrease concern while doing nothing about the problem,) I fear that Bush may move forward with the same strategy on climate change.
In any case, I'll be watching on January 23rd.
Read more about the state of the union and climate change at The Guardian
Hits: 15171
Comments (9)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Tom Konrad, January 19, 2007
I disagree with the last comment in that what Bush does will matter (and even his do-nothing "addiction to oil" soundbyte was a great boon for renewable energy... it suddenly made it much harder for conservatives to argue that there was not a problem. It is true that we will have to change our behavior to reduce our carbon impact, but what politicians do will make a difference, too. Politician's role is to provide incentives for us to change our behavior, and for companies who sell us products to make them more efficient. For instance, Energy Star is a govenrment program, and it allows us to make more informed decisions about our consumption habits.
Yes, we need to change the way we behave, but we also need government to make sure that we have the information and incentives to make good decisions.
Yes, we need to change the way we behave, but we also need government to make sure that we have the information and incentives to make good decisions.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Janis Mara, January 19, 2007
I'm totally on board with Tom Konrad here. The president of the United States has a huge influence on popular opinion. I do think a climate-change-related admission from Bush would make people think differently about the issue. I mean, I don't think people in the United States were calling for a war in Iraq, but when Bush said it was necessary, many fell in line. So why not climate change? And in terms of the big picture, if Bush changes his stance, he's far more likely not to veto environmentally friendly bills passed by Congress.
-
- +0
-
-
written by rob, January 20, 2007
Athough many people may have decided to support the war in Iraq, after President Bush endorsed it. The support didn't actually call for any action from people, unless you were a serving soldier, or support personnel.
Support for climate change will require people to take some action and I doubt that the President admitting that something needs to be done, will truly have much effect. What people say they will do and what they actually do, are two different things.
Although americans are far more patriotic than brits, so perhaps I underestimate the Presidents influence.
Support for climate change will require people to take some action and I doubt that the President admitting that something needs to be done, will truly have much effect. What people say they will do and what they actually do, are two different things.
Although americans are far more patriotic than brits, so perhaps I underestimate the Presidents influence.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Rabenstrange, January 20, 2007
As a conservative who regards the notion that humans are the root cause of global warming with disdain, I proudly proclaim that if Bush stands up and says to the world that humans are responsible for climate change my opinion on the matter will not change. The only thing that would be affected is that my respect for the man (which isn't that high) would sink a great deal further.
-
- +0
-
-
written by JoeAlien, January 20, 2007
Politicians are demonstrably poor at doing anything other than for their own good. This includes Democrats who are even worse in my view. They will say anything to make people feel good or get them elected. The people make changes, not politicians. It will be all of us collectively to change the course of what "WE" are doing that impacts the climate. There is no doubt that humans MUST have some impact, but how much is and forever will be up debate. This doesn't matter. What matters is our individual responsibility to the planet during our incredibly short stint breathing and consuming.
-
- +0
-
-
written by noob, April 26, 2007
U guys think bush is cool, but he totally sucks. He looks lie a monkey, and is a retarted as one.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Lee Wong Seoul, July 22, 2007
I do not care what Bush thinks but I do care what US president thinks...He failed during his 8 year term...
-
- +0
-
-
written by narconon, September 27, 2007
Just for the record i don't even care what Bush thinks he's on my black list since the Iraq scheme.
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
The average person watches reports on the news about the ice caps melting, then gets in their 4x4 to drive a mile down the road and rent a video and buy a pizza, while looking in a car showroom and thinking about replacing their one year old car.
No politician can bring in radical changes to peoples lifestyle, without getting voted out at the next election.
Everyone says that someone should do something about global warming, but they all think it shouldn't be themselves. It's human nature, we are inherently greedy and stupid, especially in large groups. :P