Bush: Let the World Burn

The fascinating thing about the Bush administration rejecting a German proposal for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions is that at this point they don't really have a coherent story about why they oppose this sort of action. That the administration has bothered to put together its meaningless sham program for voluntary carbon reductions and even talk the talk of renewable energies in SOTU addresses and so forth totally undercuts the grounds for opposition.

If carbon emissions are no problem, then why bother? If the problem is real, then why not do something real? Politics and campaign contributions, of course, but still it is noteworthy that the debate is now between a side that thinks carbon emissions are a big problem and so we should take action to reduce them, and a side that thinks carbon emissions are a big problem and so we should do nothing.

Comments

Im sure there is a sensible argument to be made for the Bush policy since that is the hallmark of this administration.

Now if you will excuse me, I will go ride my new pony.

Posted by Tomas | May 26, 2007 10:34 AM

Why the outrage, Matt? As the NYT article to which you link states, "Emissions in Europe and the United States have been slowing of late, with a slight drop in the United States in 2006." Looks like European regulation (and posturing) isn't doing any more or less on greenhouse emissions than Bushian laissez faire. Do you have any evidence that "do[ing] something real," per your demand, is any better at reducing greenhouse emissions than the "do[ing] nothing" that makes you so angry?

Posted by Richard Riley | May 26, 2007 10:36 AM

I love it. Doing nothing is actually no different from doing something. Richard has nailed the Bush administration line. Like, dude, why try? Trying's for lamos, and it never works anyway.

Posted by DivGuy | May 26, 2007 10:44 AM

It's God's will.

Posted by Ed | May 26, 2007 11:02 AM

World wide emissions are increasing. Rapidly. As for American emissions, I'd have to see the data to believe it. More cars. More power plants. More drought stressed regions. More logging. How would we emit less CO2. (We plateaued a few years ago on CH4, but that's started to increase again.)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 26, 2007 12:36 PM

The reduction in US carbon emissions was a one year drop, which was caused by moderate weather and increased energy prices that year. It is a small dip in a larger trend of increased emissions by the US. US emissions, by the way, far exceed those of Europe on a per capita basis.

There are major problems with the cap and trade markets used by the EU to reduce carbon emissions, which is one reason why Germany wants a new regime to replace Kyoto.

The long and short of it is that this Administration is still in deep denial about the problem.

Posted by Chuck Blanchard | May 26, 2007 12:50 PM

Apparently having a "coherent story" about why you object to a proposal requires you to advance only one reason why it's bad. But it would be a peculiar rule which allowed you to object to policies which had only one drawback, but required acceptance of policies which were offensive on several dimensions.

I can object, apparently, to a patent medicine because it won't work, OR because it's too expensive for it's purported benefit. But if the homeopaths raise their prices, I suddenly must purchase their worthless products, because I have no coherent story about why I'm not buying them.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | May 26, 2007 1:23 PM

But, you see, if the Bush administration agreed to do something to combat global climate change, it would break its unrelieved string of truly awful presidential decisions. Apparently, George W. Bush wants to be the Cal Ripkin, Jr., of executive branch error.

Posted by jlw | May 26, 2007 3:34 PM

Trying's for lamos, and it never works anyway.

And people said bush's attitude towards school, business, and learning in general didn't matter regarding his presidential qualifications!

Posted by Constantine | May 26, 2007 11:40 PM

Brett, if a patented medicine is known to work by the FDA, doctors, patients, and medical researchers, but just you are the one offering a stream of picked-at-random, incoherent, not-even-true reasons that you don't think it should be used, then, yeah, the fact that you don't have a coherent story about why it the drug shouldn't be used probably works against your credibility.

Posted by Constantine | May 26, 2007 11:44 PM

Your argument, Constantine, goes to whether the "story" is correct, and that's a quite valid concern. Matt's demand that the "story" be coherent, apparently defined as settling on only one objection to a proposal, OTOH, is absurd. In the real world, having more than one reason for rejecting a proposal makes your case stronger, not less "coherent".

Posted by Brett Bellmore | May 27, 2007 8:20 AM