Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts
The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad, a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement issued today.--would you believe the scientists or the people's (almost) choice? May need free reg for NY Times.
Blair unveils global warming plan, says U.S. must do more "We will continue to make the case to the U.S. and to others that climate change is a serious threat that we must address together as an international community," he said. "We in Britain have shown that it is possible to break the relationship between economic growth and ever-rising pollution."
With the Bush administration relying so heavily on British support of its war plans, does Blair have some real leverage here to push for more progressive Bush policies on other issues?
An agonizing depiction of the Bush administration's environmental policies
from this week's New Yorker
. It's one thing for the Natural Resources Defense Council (which dedicates a web page to tracking the president's environmental record
) to call Bush's "the most anti-environmental presidential administration ever"
; but even the generally pro-Bush Economist
has called his policy on global warming a sham
. Aaargh! (Can anyone offer anything more constructive than that? Please?)
Bush Announces Clear Skies & Global Climate Change Initiatives.
An olive branch to Venice
, Bangla Desh
, and other low lying countries?
A Commander-in-Chief tanks up
, throws the rudder hard over for a Willamson turn
, and attempts to get all those folks left of Atilla the Hun
back on the boat? We'll let him speak for himself.
(BTW, if you're concerned about the "axis of evil", check out your tax $ at work today at the State Dept.
China pops back a collective Beano. (NY Times link. Free registration required.)
One of Bush's main objections to the Kyoto protocol is China's exemption from regulation, but it seems they're doing their collective best to cut down on CO2 emissions, with success.
Even with China's rapid rate of expansion, this weakens our administration's argument a bit by setting forward the number of years it will take China to match our own emissions. At what point do we start to play nice with the other kids?
Bush to unveil global warming plan.
Because our world isn't warm enough.
Bush Admin., Scientists at odds over power issues.
I've been trying to give the President a chance, but it seems as though conservation efforts and alternative evergy sources are being completely ignored. Mere difference of opinion-or something else?
Surprise, shock and consternation.
Bush decides that, despite his earlier campaign pledge (and overwhelming scientific evidence), he will not regulate carbon dioxide emissions. I know - gee whiz, a politician lied. But I do enjoy the doublespeak of "backing off a campaign promise." Soon, we'll all have that good ol' Texan air - no matter where we are!
Most of the world rejects
the USAmerican attempt to end-around-run the Kyoto protocols. Surely we'll get our way (I use the pronouns reluctantly in this case). Who can stop us? Besides, who cares? Not President-elect (de facto) Bush. Add the guiltless bloodshed in Israel/Palestine to this and my last post and it's hard to be thankful at the global level.
"The vice president says he would rather protect this refuge than gain the energy, but this is a false choice ..."
~G.W. Bush (on Gore's plan to keep the protected status of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, while Bush plans to open up parts of the protected land to oil prospecters.)