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
Both Gov't and private actions matter
written by Tom Konrad, January 19, 2007
President Bush's actions have an impact
written by Janis Mara, January 19, 2007
Bush Can't Change My Mind
written by Rabenstrange, January 20, 2007
written by noob, April 26, 2007
written by Lee Wong Seoul, July 22, 2007
written by narconon, September 27, 2007
|< Prev||Next >|