Bush Under Fire for CO2 Climate Threat Downgrade

[papau]

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-environment-carbon.html

August 28, 2003 Bush Under Fire for CO2 Climate Threat Downgrade
By REUTERS Filed at 11:28 a.m. ET

OSLO (Reuters) - Environmentalists accused President Bush on Thursday of further undermining international efforts to curb global warming with a likely ruling that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said on Wednesday, Washington was set to rule both that CO2 is not an air pollutant and that the federal government thus has no authority to regulate emissions. It said it had been told of the plan by staff from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). "This is further evidence if any were needed that the Bush administration is merely an extension of the fossil fuel industry," said Steve Sawyer, climate policy director at Greenpeace. However, the EPA has said the United States' Clean Air Act, under which it defines pollutants, was not designed to address global warming. The United States, with about four percent of the world population, is the leading polluter and emits about 23 percent of the world's CO2. The average American emits about 19.7 tons per year against 0.1 ton per Rwandan.
<snip>

The European Union insists it is keeping CO2 -- which occurs

"Washington is well aware that Moscow's decision not to ratify the protocol would kill the agreement once and for all, and this is what the United States ultimately wants,'' said Natalia Oleferenko, a CO2 expert at Greenpeace in Moscow. Russian officials were not available for comment.<snip>

Greenpeace's Sawyer said countries routinely impose limits on natural substances when they occur in unnatural amounts, such as CO2. Washington imposes limits on ozone, for instance, to reduce smog.

[papau]

1. The US limits "natural" OZONE - but excess CO2 is not forbidden?

Will the US media report the lack of logic - or would that hurt Bush and therefore be a topic the American people are not interested in?

[dArKeR]

2. EPA won’t list carbon dioxide as air pollutant - MSGOP

Following its controversial Clean Air Act exemption for industry, the Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday rejected a petition that carbon dioxide — a gas that many scientists fear is warming the Earth — be categorized and regulated as an air pollutant.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/958391.asp?0cv=CB10

http://darkerxdarker.tripod.com/

[baby_bear]

3. good grief

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/6642355.htm
<snip>
(EPA) denied a petition by the International Center for Technology Assessment, a technology watchdog group, and other organizations to impose new controls on vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions blamed for contributing to global warming.

"Congress must provide us with clear legal authority before we can take regulatory action to address a fundamental issue such as climate change," said Jeff Holmstead, EPA's assistant administrator, who heads the Office of Air and Radiation.

Agency officials, reversing a stance from the Clinton administration, said they lack authority to regulate greenhouse gases that scientists widely believe are contributing to global climate change.
</snip>

If the Dems can't wake up America on this issue...there's just no hope.

s_m

[NNadir]

4. This is not the responsibility of "The Dems" alone, but of every American

citzen.

The Dems cannot make this an issue until the people as a whole get their heads out of the sand.

It is amazing to me that the media never mentioned "The Greenhouse Effect" during the recent deaths of 12 thousand people in Europe. WE, THE PEOPLE should demand a discussion of this from the media. I email the liars at CNN, MSNBC, CBS... etc, to make them aware that I at least know what's happening here. (I don't waste my breath on Faux though).

It helps I think to keep pointing out to our media outlets that they are functioning as propaganda units. From a few emails I've gotten back from editors and such, I think their feeling a little squirmy.

[baby_bear]

5. Of course you are right

The health of the environment should be a priority for everyone. And there are plenty of Republicans who care as much or more than the average Democrat.

I just meant that this has to a be a campaign issue. It has to be talked about. And I doubt that even the environmentally aware Republicans are going to point fingers at Bush and his clan. So that leaves it to the Dems.

Maybe that is too simplistic, but still, the Bushistas must NOT be allowed to get away with the latest environmental bank robberies without political consequence.

Here's an interesting article:
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=164910
<snip>
...In science fantasy writer Ray Bradbury's classic "Fahrenheit 451," fire departments go around deliberately setting fires to libraries, thereby turning on its head what a fire department is all about.
In the Bush administration, the Environmental Protection Agency is working overtime to scuttle the Clean Air Act. In effect, trashing the environment.

So what's the difference between the two? Sadly enough, very little, except that Bradbury's savage look at government control gone savagely amok is fiction, while the Bush EPA's gutting of air standards will really hurt us.

Why is it, I wonder, that we have to continually fight our own government for clean air to breathe? Ray Bradbury would have a field day with this.
</snip>

It's getting so that a career EPA scientist is ashamed to admit where she works these days....

s_m