GW Bush : GW Admission

If you blinked, you would have missed it.

With the absolute tsunami of Ameri-speak pseudo-news items that flooded the world the other day, it would have been hard to get into some of the detail.

But, the Carbon Signal was right in there. He actually said that Oil Means Warming.

I think it's time we sat up and fully appreciated the significance of the State Of The Union speech given by George W Bush, and applauded him for finally admitting that Climate Change is actually a problem, and that actually, it's caused by burning Fossil Fuels.

I think he's actually come out of the Denial Closet.

Here's the causal relationship that he firmly established for us :-

FOSSIL FUEL BURNING = ENERGY + CARBON DIOXIDE = GLOBAL WARMING = BAD NEWS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-shaw/bush-he-thaid-global-cl_b_39546.html

For the record, Bush said:

"America's on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change."

Hmm, must have taken him great pains to utter these words.

Although he didn't say "global warming." Too much to expect there.

Maybe its a start- like saying "I am an alcoholic." Bush may have uttered those words back when he was younger.

Now that he's taken that first step in terms of admitting that global climate change is a "challenge," then I have a couple of challenges for you, Mr. President.

How about endorsing caps on carbon dioxide from electrical power plants, which are said to contribute 40 percent of global warming- OK, "climate changing" greenhouse emissions.

What about signing the Kyoto Protocol?

Think of it this way, Mr. President. If we combat "global climate change" now, all those precious stem cells that will grow up to be children (and won't be left behind, in the educational sense) will thank you for the clean air.

Not only that, but the Republican-leaning private-equity financiers that seem to be seizing an economic hold on this nation will still have snow around which to build ski resorts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/24/154059/394

Lots of greens were looking forward to Bush forthrightly acknowledging global warming for the first time in a SOTU. Turns out that happened with a fizzle, not a bang. A grudging reference to "global climate change" was tacked onto the end of the energy section, and Bush rushed past it like someone stepping over dog poop on the sidewalk. "Desultory" is a charitable characterization.

The fact that Bush doesn't take global warming seriously is reflected in his proposals. Nothing he mentioned, even if he meets all his stated goals, will have the slightest effect on climate change.

What about energy? The big splash was "20 in 10," the goal to reduce U.S. gasoline use by 20% in 10 years.

The text of Bush's actual speech is so sketchy and schematic on the proposal as to be incomprehensible. Sadly, taking a closer look at the White House cheat sheet doesn't lift one's spirits. For one thing, the vaunted 20% is a reduction in projected gas use, not current gas use. So it's slower growth, not really a "reduction" at all. Shocking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush's alternative fuels obligation

Bush's alternative fuels obligation of 35 billion gallons actually says "renewable and alternative fuels" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_01_07_sotu.pdf, http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11020-bushs-address-tackle...

So apparently it could be fulfilled by coal-to-diesel, which has appx. double the life cycle CO2 of standard diesel and is only made viable by murky subsidies: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1167738-1,00.html.

Even Reuters slipped up here: http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/40013/story.htm - seems like they blinked and missed it Jo!

US generals urge climate action

Story from BBC News:

US generals urge climate action

Former US military leaders have called on the Bush administration to make major cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

In a report, they say global warming poses a serious threat to national security, as the US could be drawn into wars over water and other conflicts.

They appear to criticise President George W Bush's refusal to join an international treaty to cut emissions.

Among the 11 authors are ex-Army chief of staff Gordon Sullivan and Mr Bush's ex-Mid-East peace envoy Anthony Zinni.

The report says the US "must become a more constructive partner" with other nations to fight global warming and deal with its consequences.

It warns that over the next 30 to 40 years, there will be conflicts over water resources, as well as increased instability resulting from rising sea levels and global warming-related refugees.

"The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism," the 35-page report predicts.

'Pay now - or later'

Writing in the report, Gen Zinni, a former commander of US Central Command, says: "It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism."

He adds: "We will pay for this one way or another. We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind.

"Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll."

The report was issued by a Virginia-based national security think-tank, The CNA Corporation, and was written by six retired admirals and five retired generals.

Climate scientists broadly endorsed the report.

But Stanford scientist Terry Root, a joint author of this month's international scientific report on the effects of global warming on life on Earth, said its timescale might be too alarmist, as some of the predicted events - while likely to occur - could take longer than 30 years to happen.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6557803.stm

Published: 2007/04/15 16:46:52 GMT

© BBC MMVII

MSNBC Also Runs With

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18123962/

Report: Global warming may be security factor
Top ex-military leaders say more terrorism, conflicts over water may ensue
Updated: 4:30 p.m. ET April 15, 2007

WASHINGTON - Global warming poses a “serious threat to America’s national security” with terrorism worsening and the U.S. will likely be dragged into fights over water and other shortages, top retired military leaders warn in a new report.

Joining calls already made by scientists and environmental activists, the retired U.S. military leaders, including the former Army chief of staff and President Bush’s former chief Middle East peace negotiator, called on the U.S. government to make major cuts in emissions of gases that cause global warming.

The report warned that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels and global warming-induced refugees. “The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism,” the 35-page report predicted.

“Climate change exacerbates already unstable situations,” former U.S. Army chief of staff Gordon Sullivan told Associated Press Radio. “Everybody needs to start paying attention to what’s going on. I don’t think this is a particularly hard sell in the Pentagon. ... We’re paying attention to what those security implications are.”

Gen. Anthony “Tony” Zinni, Bush’s former Middle East envoy, said in the report: “It’s not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism.”

The report was issued by the Alexandria, Va.-based, national security think-tank The CNA Corporation and was written by six retired admirals and five retired generals. They warned of a future of rampant disease, water shortages and flooding that will make already dicey areas — such as the Middle East, Asia and Africa — even worse.

“Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies,” the report said. “The U.S. will be drawn more frequently into these situations.”

Call for U.S. to join other countries
In a veiled reference to Bush’s refusal to join an international treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the report said the U.S. government “must become a more constructive partner” with other nations to fight global warming and cope with its consequences.

The Bush administration has declined mandatory emission cuts in favor of voluntary methods. Other nations have committed to required reductions that kick in within a few years.

“We will pay for this one way or another,” wrote Zinni, former commander of U.S. Central Command. “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll.”

Top climate scientists said the report makes sense and increased national security risk is a legitimate global warming side-effect.

Envisioned: ‘A war over water’
The report is “pretty impressive,” but may be too alarmist because it may take longer than 30 years for some of these things to happen, said Stanford scientist Terry Root, a co-author of this month’s international scientific report on the effects of global warming on life on Earth.

But the instability will happen sometime, Root agreed.

“We’re going to have a war over water,” Root said. “There’s just not going to be enough water around for us to have for us to need to live with and to provide for the natural environment.”

University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver said the military officers were smart to highlight the issue of refugees who flee unstable areas because of global warming.

“There will be tens of millions of people migrating, where are we going to put them?” Weaver said.

Weaver said that over the past years, scientists, who by nature are cautious, have been attacked by conservative activists when warning about climate change. This shows that it’s not a liberal-conservative issue, Weaver said.

New York Times : Alternative Angle

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/us/15warm.html?em&ex=1176782400&en=fef...
Global Warming Called Security Threat

By ANDREW C. REVKIN and TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
Published: April 15, 2007

For the second time in a month, private consultants to the government are warning that human-driven warming of the climate poses risks to the national security of the United States.

A report, scheduled to be published on Monday but distributed to some reporters yesterday, said issues usually associated with the environment — like rising ocean levels, droughts and violent weather caused by global warming — were also national security concerns.

“Unlike the problems that we are used to dealing with, these will come upon us extremely slowly, but come they will, and they will be grinding and inexorable,” Richard J. Truly, a retired United States Navy vice admiral and former NASA administrator, said in the report.

The effects of global warming, the study said, could lead to large-scale migrations, increased border tensions, the spread of disease and conflicts over food and water. All could lead to direct involvement by the United States military.

The report recommends that climate change be integrated into the nation’s security strategies and says the United States “should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability.”

The report, called “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,” was commissioned by the Center for Naval Analyses, a government-financed research group, and written by a group of retired generals and admirals called the Military Advisory Board.

In March, a report from the Global Business Network, which advises intelligence agencies and the Pentagon on occasion, concluded, among other things, that rising seas and more powerful storms could eventually generate unrest as crowded regions like Bangladesh’s sinking delta become less habitable.

One of the authors of the report, Peter Schwartz, a consultant who studies climate risks and other trends for the Defense Department and other clients, said the climate system, jogged by a century-long buildup of heat-trapping gases, was likely to rock between extremes that could wreak havoc in poor countries with fragile societies.

“Just look at Somalia in the early 1990s,” Mr. Schwartz said. “You had disruption driven by drought, leading to the collapse of a society, humanitarian relief efforts, and then disastrous U.S. military intervention. That event is prototypical of the future.”

“Picture that in Central America or the Caribbean, which are just as likely,” he said. “This is not distant, this is now. And we need to be preparing.”

Other recent studies have shown that drought and scant water have already fueled civil conflicts in global hot spots like Afghanistan, Nepal, and Sudan, according to several recent studies.

This bodes ill, given projections that human-driven warming is likely to make some of the world’s driest, poorest places drier still, experts said.

“The evidence is fairly clear that sharp downward deviations from normal rainfall in fragile societies elevate the risk of major conflict,” said Marc Levy of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, which recently published a study on the relationship between climate and civil war.

Given that climate models project drops in rainfall in such places in a warming world, Mr. Levy said, “It seems irresponsible not to take into account the possibility that a world with climate change will be a more violent world when making judgments about how tolerable such a world might be.”