Bush's comments are completely irrelevant. They come far too late in his administration to mean anything -- the damage has already been done.

I think the Boston Globe said it rather succinctly in the first and last paragraphs of their lead editorial this morning:

IF President Bush had unveiled his goals for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at the beginning of his administration instead of in its waning months, he might have actually played a role in linking the United States to global efforts to curb climate change. But the proposals he made yesterday, which in 2001 could have been a starting point for negotiations with advocates of stronger action in Congress, are now too belated and too weak to be more than a historical footnote. All three remaining presidential candidates are committed to much more stringent, mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide.
...
This country is a world leader in both total emissions of greenhouse gases and emissions per capita. It is long past time for it to set an example by taking the problem seriously and, at the same time, developing the new green industries that will be part of the solution. Yesterday's proposal falls far short. The president who makes the United States a world player in combating global warming will be Hillary Clinton, John McCain, or Barack Obama - not George Bush.

Sounds completely reasonable.

It will be savaged by Gore/Hansen etc. for that very reason.

Gore can't make money off it, because it involves real technology - which is something he doesn't understand.

It is reminiscent of the "addicted to oil" acknowledgement with no plan to do anything about it.

Very reasonable approach that will give us time to learn more about earth's climate and, in the unlikely event that CO2 actually does have the claimed effect, time to develop and implement alternative energy sources in an orderly fashion.

Let's see... the AGW alarmists want us to:
-enact draconian carbon emission restrictions knowing full well that the currently available alternative energy sources cannot possibly replace the energy currently produced by fossil fuels.
-enact the CO2 emission cuts knowing full well that, if implemented before other sources of energy are ready, it will devastate our economy.
-enact the CO2 emission cuts knowing full well that, since China and India are not on board, even buying their assumptions, our GHG reductions can have no measurable effect on future global warming.
GOSH!!! WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE ABOUT THAT?

As a libertarian, I'm no fan of President Bush, but one does have to respect that he has the cojones to resist enormous pressure from the AGW crowd and take a more reasoned, pragmatic approach to this issue.

As I said in an earlier post, we should be very sure about AGW, indeed, before we begin to dismantle our global economy that currently runs on hydrocarbons. Sounds like the President understands this.

DC

In 2009 alone, the government and the private sector plan to dedicate nearly a billion dollars to clean coal research and development.

It would be nice to see a small fraction of that being spent on researching whether CO2 is doing as much Greenhousing as is being proclaimed.

Even though this has been "settled" by someone's word that was based on an AI (Anthropogenic Imagination) computer model that presupposed CO2's strength, I still think it would be money well spent.

Why anyone who has endured one or more of his speeches would trust his judgment on GW is beyond me.

It takes 230 kg of corn to make 50 liters of ethanol. So the corn that would feed a human being for one year will instead be made into a weeks worth of fuel?

36 billion gallons of ethanol = ~40 billion kg of corn

While all ethanol would not be produced from corn a substantial portion would be simply because many farmers are familiar with growing it and already have means to harvest it.

The policies that are driven from AGW will hurt the poor more than any.

Eventually the world will hate the US not because of GW Bush, but rather because of our idiotic policies that were driven from AGW.

Foods like grits and tortillas will be considered fancy in the not too distant future.

AGW sucks. http://zfacts.com/p/63.html

Steve

The President has gone too far. Cutting emissions of a harmless trace gas like CO2 based on an unproven hypothesis that says it causes global warming is ludicrous. Recent history shows no global warming and no evidence of an impending crisis. Until those in the scientific community who subscribe to this theory about CO2's role in earth's climate validate it, President Bush should file this under, "needs further study" and do nothing.

But, that's not how politicians operate when under pressure from the AGW disciples, some of whom are fellow world leaders. The AGW movement has taken on the characteristics of a cult and we taxpayers are being taken for a very expensive ride.

BT,
The Globe failed to mention that not one Senator voted for the Kyoto Accords when it came up for passage in 2000.

I serioulsy doubt that the President had an epiphany. His proposals included many non-binding ideas, and any agreement would have to include China and India -which isn't about to happen. In light of the current performance of the economy, it would be political suicide for any politician to offer up a bill that would include very large taxe increases on energy,ariculture, retail, manufacturing, and housing. The way things are going, the whole Carbon Tax issue is bound to be what the ERA Amendment was in the 70s -always with us, but always a vote or 2 short of passage.

Bush's comments are completely irrelevant. They come far too late in his administration to mean anything -- the damage has already been done.

REPLY: GOOD! Then let's call the whole thing off!!!! Over this stupid farce and fraud! And quit your whining! Ya know, I was praying that someone would respond this way, and I just knew it would either be Mark or BT!...LOL!!

Oh, by the by, the insanity continues:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351353,00.html

It is just too easy to poke fun at the nut cases. Once again, to you enviro-zealots, your side of the fence.

I agree with Brookline Tom- Bush's comments are completely irrelevant, but not for the reason he thinks... just read Fred Singer and Dennis Avery's new book "Unstoppable Global Warming" to get the newest actual research data and conclusions about the 'climate change scare', which clearly shows we are 150 years into a warming which not only did we not cause but also which we can do nothing about. So relax and enjoy the warmth- it could be otherwise.

I'm not sure Bush's initiatives will work to prevent more punitive policies being enacted in the future.

I'd really like to see an initiative to better investigate climate change. Perhaps we could start funding both sides?

What if we spent equal amounts on studying natural climate change as well as possible human-driven climate change? Researchers wouldn't have to worry about not getting funding if they don't toe the line. We would get real scientific debate and not sound bites from self-important failed politicians who won't answer questions in an open forum. We'd also get a chance to see if there is really something to AGW or if it's just the current fad of the environmental activists.

GW Steve,

I can only assume your recent "conversion" didn't go exactly according to plan. Welcome back!

BT,

I know this is election year in the US,
but surely the point should be are Bush's announcements now of any practical value? If they are it doesn't really matter how late in his term of office they have come.

For that matter I'm sure there are plenty of decisions Bill Clinton could have taken that would have been even better than decisions Bush could have taken because they would have been taken earlier. In this respect the Boston Globe article is somewhat disingenuous.

Uhg! Yes new technologies are the answer to alot of things, I have ranted about suppressed technologies before, Bush Oil Cartel wants oil expensive to justify the opening up of thier oil mining leases for the north slope of Alaska...yes folks the Bush family has stakes in expensive oil....Beyond that true sober conduct of our economic affaires is always a good idea, food production and fair trade and new effecient and clean technologies are all a plus. Pollution is never a good thing. BUT..TRUTH is still the objective for this researcher..and TRUTH is in short supply when dealing with politicians. They say what the public wants to hear but enact policies that we don't want...routinely..historically and the pressent is no different. I still want people to Go Outside and LOOK at cirrus clouds and I want to hear what people see when the planes show up....Contrails? Chemtrails? Weather Modification? I have observed Cirrus Clouds getting sprayed everytime they are in my skies, NYC and Catskill Mountains. Global Warming is phoney and engineered. Look at the sky people, look for yourselves!

Corn is apparently also being used for the green friendly coffee cups.

I read an recent survey said that only about 50 percent of the population believes in global warming.

One thing is for sure. Nobody is the least bit interested in global cleaning up the environment. I see people throwing trash out of their cars every day, or just parking and unloading their cars of crap in the parking lots right onto the pavement. Who would those people be? Yup, the college student that is engaged in the political process today. Apparently Barack's global climate policy is not getting through. Do you know why? It is because cleaning up the litter is a simple answer and easily fixed. Embracing the idea of the climate warming without any real proof calls upon those that want to embrace a movement that has few, if any solvable answers. Housekeeping is just plain not sexy enough to campaign about, nor report about.

Roger Sahs, you are on the right track but a little off on the time scale. The last Ice Age ended a little over 10,000 years ago. We have been in a warming 'trend' for at least 12,000 years, and it was NOT caused by man (unless you insist it was due to the few hundred thousand open-air campfires from our progenitors-less than one small city's worth in Europe, today).

George Bush did a good thing not signing onto the Kyoto Accords nor did the Senate ratify the treaty (as pointed out by JP).

The Global Warming Scare is manufactured by large numbers of academics, researchers and politicians to provide a Cash Cow to live off of the next thirty years, or until the public realizes it's all a scam. In the local colleges the Man-Caused-Global-Warming theory is taught as Gospel to try and force more momentum that way. Estimates by educators are that the average GW researcher will make over 80,000 $ a year on grants from the taxpayers pocketbook.

Talk about Pork!

The global sea ice anomaly is the third or fourth highest on record. Maybe this year will see the most sea ice ever recorded on this planet?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

This renewable fuel sources are the biggest trojan horse it comes to fighting global warming.. Not only in their emissions but in their production and the loss of forests and other habitat to make room for planting.. I heard (don't know for sure but heard) that is would take 400 years for the fuel efficiency of biofuel to make up for the carbon output of clearing the land.. Thats insane how does that help!! They cause as big or bigger of a carbon imprint as gasoline does.. Mechanical (wind, tidal ect..), solar power, and Hydrogen cells are the viable alternatives right now so lets just embrace that and move on..

Yep, as the Boston Globe states we need a president like Obama, Clinton, McCain to control Global Warming, that would be great, a president that there main concern is focused on a hoax, just glorious. Who cares what happens to the country as long as we can make it cooler. Did anyone hear Cheney's jokes, if not they were very funny and great, although he did say he is convinced Al Gore is right about it warming up and its going to get warmer before it gets cooler, he said after all it is spring time!

do the math and follow the money
somewhere the carbon credit scheme will be viewed as a way to reduce emissions because companies who cant meet mandated standards will be able to buy credits from those who can thus delaying their requirement to pass them. those credits will cost them money which will be passed on to the rest of us in increases in the products we buy.

the commodity exchanges have got to be licking their collective chops over these upcoming(if their not already here in some form)contracts.
open interest could be in the millions of contracts with 100,000 contracts traded daily.
lets say 240 trading days equals 24 million contracts traded in a year-at $10 profit per contract $240,000,000 big al spent 300,000,000
to get this going. the rewards will be huge

loub ba meteorology-however never officialy worked in the field but probably remember and forgot more than big al will ever know

20 years stock and commodities broker-by the way wait til the speculators get a hold of those contracts-itll make todays metal runs look impotent

George Bush is just doing what any sane Republican would do...avoiding unnecessary pain for no gain. He's leaving the bad decisions up to the next prez who will most likely be a Democrat so they can take the blame for the economic downturn these stupid ideas will cause. Dem's will be in office for one term only if they dare act the way they say they will.
A realistic and strategic move would be to build several hundred coal plants now along with fifty or so nuclear plants to keep a leg up on the rapidly growing need for new electrical generation. This will help ensure our economic prosperity for a couple of generations. CO2 emittance should be of absolutely no concern because it's simply conjecture that it's the cause of the warming that happened to stop ten years ago. Act on what you know to be sure, not what some with an agenda would have you believe.
I've always said the US dodged a real bullet because there was a Republican in the White House when 9/11 happened, I think the same thing applies with the AGW boogyman.

I agree with PH. Sounds reasonable.

Off topic:

My neighbor has an outboard motor for his boat. He came over complaining that it was gummed up from ethanol. I didn't think anything of it, until I tried to start my GSXR this week. It wouldn't start. I pulled a bowl off one of its carburetors and it was clean.

So off to the shop it went. The service manager told me (to my surprise) that ethanol is creating problems with gumming up carbs, fuel pumps, jets, etc.

Yup...gummed up. First time this has ever happened to one of my bikes. I've been riding for over 20 years. The service manager said that if the gas sits for more than 90 days, it will create problems. Well, with the long winter we had from AGW, our bikes sat for a while. Now I have to shell out $400 to clean up from whatever damage ethanol created. AGW sucks! Thanks Gore. Brett, have you heard or posted anything about similar problems with ethanol?
Reply: No, I have not heard about any.

Bruins & Canadiens back in Boston for game 6 dude. Playoff hockey rocks. Reply: Yea, just forget the regular season.

The prices of foods depending on corn and corn-fed cattle has already begun to climb. Corn as biofuel and gasohol is stupid. It would be etter for our health if the food conglomerates went back to real cane sugar though.

What I'd like to see is more concern for the environment and less frivolous waste of all the energy sources. That would be better, with fewer or no coal fueled or nuclear fueled generation.

Get smart, people. Walk, ride a bike, move closer to work, use public transit, etc.

Luddite

More on NOAA's "Second warmest March ever" April Fools joke.

According to satellite data, the world was a whopping 0.09 degrees above average.
Global composite temp.: +0.09 C (about 0.16 degrees Fahrenheit) above 20-year average for March.
http://climate.uah.edu/march2008.htm

Steve Bloom's "expanding tropics"
tropics falling to their coldest seasonally-adjusted temperature (-0.49 C below the 20-year average for March) since the La Nina of March 1989

Temperature trends for the past 30 years are much below the IPCC's most conservative "scenarios."
Global trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade

Temperatures are falling. Sea ice is increasing. And Time Magazine wants to save the earth from the heat.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/stillshots/2008/TimeIwoJima.jpg

Reply: Patrick, Here's one just for you. Brett

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Bellamy39s-theory-that-good-skiing.3995988.jp

It's nice to talk about new technology, but the fact is that you need a massive amount of investment to develop cutting edge technologies. Corporations simply can not, do not, and will not undertake that type of risk. Corporations are good at making an incremental improvement on an existing te