# Washington rules CO2 is not a pollutant



## Brian G Turner (Aug 30, 2003)

Really, it's quite astonishing how much the Bush administration will try and squirm out of their responsibility on this issue. 

What's really sad, though, is that Global Warming is sure to bite the USA hard. 

My intuition tells me that changes in rainfall patterns due to Global Warming are going to have a serious impact on the US agricultural sector. 

That's before we even address flooding issues and storm damage. 

The short-term chase for profit at a long-term loss is a staggering mentality that is hard to understand. 

What's even worse, is that when the US finally turns around and faces this issue, it will likely be quite too late. 

At that point is should never be forgotten why the warnings were ignored.

Here's the news report:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N27198975.htm


> EPA to rule won't regulate carbon dioxide emissions
> 
> WASHINGTON, Aug 27 (Reuters) - The Bush Administration is set to rule that carbon dioxide is not an air pollutant and that the federal government has no authority to regulate emissions linked to global warming, an environmental group said on Wednesday.
> 
> ...



If I may add to this article a partial transcript here from:

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_suzuki.html

Bill Moyer's interview with David T. Suzuki, Phd., an award-winning scientist, environmentalist and broadcaster: 



> MOYERS: We get so many reports of what we're doing to our air, our soil and our water. But I ask you as a scientist, is the diagnosis lethal?
> 
> SUZUKI: I don't think anyone can say at what point it will be lethal to us as a species. I like to say that in Canada not long ago, Cape Brettan coalminers took canaries in the coal mine. When the canary keeled over, they didn't say, "Hey, Jack, come on over here. This bird just fell over. What do you think? Do you think it's…" They hauled their backsides outta there as fast as they could go. Birds are, especially canaries are super sensitive to hydrogen sulfide, and sour gas. So, they give you an early warning.
> 
> ...


----------



## littlemissattitude (Aug 30, 2003)

First, I do have to say that there is _some_ possibility that at least a _part_ of the warming that earth seems fairly clearly to be going through _could_ be part of a normal interglacial fluctuation.  Certainly, times during many of the interglacial periods of the Pleistocene ice ages (which we may still be in, by the way, notwithstanding that geologists have labeled our geologic period the Holocene), were much warmer than current conditions.  The interesting thing, from what I understand of the phenomenon, is that these times of extreme warming directly preceded the coldest periods of the Ice Age.  That is geology talking, not any sort of political position.

However, having said all that, anyone who actually thinks that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant is an idiot.  There is no other way to characterize those folks.  Just the fact that carbon dioxide poisoning is sometimes cited as a cause of death, for pity's sake, establishes the fact that it is toxic.  This is just another case of the government catering to big business at the expense of everyone else.

Edited to say that this really reminds me of the time the Reagan Administration decreed that catsup is a vegetable.  Forget the fact that tomatoes are fruit, not vegetables.  It amazes me that people in government think that something is so just because they say it is.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Sep 7, 2003)

Certainly the possibility that there is a natural cycle at play is not to be over-looked - but I'm taking my cues from people such as the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, who were to commissioned to report on the issue for the UN.

Essentially, the conclusions state that human activities are likely a very significant factor in climate change, and that humanity should look to curb gaseous emissions that are believed to contribute excessively to the effect, in an attempt to slow - even reverse it.

The position of George W. Bush has always been one of close ties to the US oil industry - it's been remarked that trying to negotiate CO" reductions with him would be like negotiating with Exxon. Essentially, the oil industry is out to protect its own immediate financial interests - coupled with a general (over?) protective attitude to the US economy - not to mention, of course, the general dislike in Republicanism to centralise too much.

So Bush's position is to play safe and ensure that there is no national policy on CO2 - and that there will not be one - instead leaving it to individual states to rule on the matter itself.

Although understandable in political terms, the whole thinking just seems so short-term. As reported in the New Scientist article referenced on the farming thread, parts of the USA are predicted to suffer particularly from drought as Global Warming increases. 

In which case is it really for the President of the United States to deny that a problem exists, when that problem is internationally recognised to exist - and a problem that is believed threatens various state economies?

The idea that further study is required is an obvious stalling tactic - to ensure that Bush does not have to address the issue during his own term in office. After all, what US president wants to threaten voters with potential increases in gas prices?

But really this is all simply symptomatic of short-term thinking versus long-term thinking. It's ingrained in our Western culture and is heartily powered through capitalism. 

I guess it's simply yet another case of where humanity needs to burn itself to convincingly learn that fire is hot.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Sep 8, 2003)

> The idea that further study is required is an obvious stalling tactic - to ensure that Bush does not have to address the issue during his own term in office. After all, what US president wants to threaten voters with potential increases in gas prices?



The "further study" stall is traditional in Washington, D. C., and in every state and local government in the United States.  It's the quickest way to take a problem off the table.  The government, as far as I can see, spends far more money "studying" any particular problem than they would ever spend to just solve the problem in question and be done with it.

And, as far as short-term versus long-term thinking by those holding public office: I don't think I've ever run across an American politician who can see any farther than their own next election.  That has become the be-all and end-all of politics in this country, I think - just maintaining the office.  There are very few (if any) politicians who are willing to do the right thing if it might stand in the way of getting re-elected.

Now, term limits was supposed to solve some of that problem.  If someone can only serve a set number of terms in a specific office, it was said, they wouldn't worry so much about their actions' effects on their re-election chances.  The joke is, even when they term out in once office, they are always looking to the next office they plan to run for.  It is all about self-interest, rather than the public interest.


----------

