In the aftermath of publication of the "IPCC report." today, the Bush administration is taking credit for playing a "a leading role in studying and addressing global climate change." In a press release posted to the web, U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman said this:
"The Administration welcomes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which was developed through thousands of hours of research by leading U.S. and international scientists and informed by significant U.S. investments in advancing climate science research. Climate change is a global challenge that requires global solutions. Through President Bush's leadership, the U.S. government is taking action to curb the growth of greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging
the development and deployment of clean energy technologies here in the United States and across the globe.
"EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson chimed in with his own self-congratulatory remarks: "Through our commitment to sound science and innovation, the Bush Administration has built a solid foundation to address the environmental challenges of the 21st Century."
The press release goes on to claim that the U.S. "leads the world in advancing climate science and addressing our impact on Earth's climate," thanks to $29 billion in "climate-related science, technology, international assistance, and incentive programs — more than any other country."
It seems that Bush has gone from saying that we couldn't do anything about climate change because we didn't know enough about it to saying that we've been doing a huge amount all along. In reality, what obviously has happened is that the politics of the issue has shifted profoundly. With the change in power in the Congress, corporate support for action on climate, and ExxonMobil's recent decision to admit that climate change is real and we ought to be doing something about it, the administration no longer has any cover for claiming that the issue needs further study. Of course one could argue that action was justified years ago, even before Bush became president — as an insurance policy against something we could never be absolutely certain would happen but which has long looked likely enough to warrant a significant policy response.
The IPCC report explicitly recognizes something that climate scientists like James White here at the University of Colorado have been saying for quite some time now: Warming and sea level rise will "continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized." In other words, no matter what we do now, we should expect significant change for a very long time to come.
Issues for journalists to address:
What is included in the $29 billion the administration is claiming to have spent on climate science, technology, incentives and assistance? In the technology area, does this include so-called "clean coal" and nuclear power, and how much do those expenditures compare with spending on energy efficiency and renewable energy? I think we all know the answers, but they should be documented.
And now that the IPCC has explicitly said we should expect our planet's climate system to change significantly no matter what we choose to do now, what should we do about this? (How do you spell "adaptation"?)
Lastly, journalists really should hold the administration accountable for its actions (suppressing and misrepresenting climate science) and inaction (failure to take climate change seriously until now — if it is, in fact, taking it seriously now).
Given a statement today from Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, some might argue that the administration is not being serious enough. According to an "AP report", Bodman continued the administration's opposition to mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases, saying this would hurt the economy. He claimed that the United States is "a small contributor" to greenhouse gas emissions. For the record, as a country the United States is the single largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and overall we are responsible for about 27 percent of all emissions. Does that sound like "small" to you?
5 comments:
Given a statement today from Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, some might argue that the administration is not being serious enough. According to an "AP report", Bodman continued the administration's opposition to mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases, saying this would hurt the economy. He claimed that the United States is "a small contributor" to greenhouse gas emissions. For the record, as a country the United States is the single largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and overall we are responsible for about 27 percent of all emissions.
Does that sound like "small" to you?
-- Tom Yulsman
Of course, the ExxonMobil-funded think tanks are already preparing retaliatory efforts to cast a shadow of doubt on the IPCC's findings.
Check out: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070202/pl_afp/unclimateusdeny_070202142458&printer=1;_ylt=AvsF6ecedge08Qz5EnVEmPitOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
This is a perfect example of the methods of groups like the American Enterprise Institute; grease the palms and let media's obligation to "fairness" do the rest.
Einav is referring to a report in the Guardian, which says that the American Enterprise Insitute has offered $10,000 to scientists and economists willing to write articles undermining the IPCC report. The article points out that ExxonMobil provides funding to the AEI.
According to the article, "The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees."
ExxonMobil held a conference call with bloggers this afternoon to discuss the IPCC report, and it issued an official response to the Guardian story:
"ExxonMobil has no knowledge regarding the allegations made in the February 2 article by Ian Sample. ExxonMobil does fund AEI for the purpose of promoting active policy debate along with many others including Microsoft, Dell, State Farm, International Paper, Dow Chemical, American Express and others. The AEI is an independent tax exempt organization and questions related to this matter should be directed to them."
ExxonMobil recently seemed to be throwing in the towel on the "global warming: yes or no?" fight. "We believe climate change is a serious issue and that action must be taken,” Ken Cohen, ExxonMobil's vice president for public affairs, said last week during a conference call. He even implied that the company was more partial to one policy option over another — a carbon tax as opposed to mandatory caps on CO2 emissions.
Cohen said ExxonMobil had stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which stands accused of misrepresenting climate science and pursuing a disinformation campaign to help ensure gridlock on the issue. But he didn't say a word about the American Enterprise Institute.
Now we know the answer.
-- Tom Yulsman
Following another strand of this story... The Bush Administration today touted how much it is doing to study climate change. But a two-year study by the National Academy of Sciences, released in Janaury, found one crucial aspect of climate science — monitoring the Earth from space to see how the planet is changing — is at risk.
From the National Academy report:
"As documented in this report, the United States’ extraordinary foundation of global observations
is at great risk. Between 2006 and the end of the decade, the number of operating missions will decrease dramatically and the number of operating sensors and instruments on NASA spacecraft, most of which are well past their nominal lifetimes, will decrease by some 40 percent . . ."
See the Washington Post story on the report.
-- T.Y.
Post a Comment