In March 2001, a White House team used a single economic analysis by the Energy Department to build a case that Mr. Bush quickly used to back out of his campaign pledge to restrict power plant discharges of carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas linked to global warming.
The analysis, from December 2000, was based on a number of assumptions, including one that no technological innovation would occur. The result showed that prompt cuts in carbon dioxide from power plants would weaken the economy.
Other analyses, including some by other branches of the Department of Energy, drew different conclusions but were ignored.
Advice from climate experts at the Environmental Protection Agency was sought but also ignored. A March 7 memorandum from agency experts to the White House team recommended that the carbon dioxide pledge be kept, saying the Energy Department study “was based on assumptions that do not apply” to Mr. Bush’s plan and “inflates the costs of achieving carbon dioxide reductions.” The memo was given to The New York Times by a former E.P.A. official who says science was not adequately considered.
Nonetheless, the White House team stuck to its course, drafting a memo on March 8 to John Bridgeland, the president’s domestic policy adviser, that used the energy study to argue for abandoning the campaign promise.
None of the authors was a scientist. The team consisted of Cesar Conda, an adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and now a political consultant; Andrew Lundquist, the White House energy policy director, who is now an energy lobbyist; Kyle E. McSlarrow, the chairman of Dan Quayle’s 2000 presidential campaign and now deputy secretary of energy; Robert C. McNally Jr., an energy and economic analyst who is now an investment banker; Karen Knutson, a deputy on energy policy and a former Republican Senate aide; and Marcus Peacock, an analyst on science and energy issues from the Office of Management and Budget. They concluded that Mr. Bush could continue to say he believed that global warming was occurring but make a case that “any specific policy proposals or approaches aimed at addressing global warming must await further scientific inquiry.”
Are these the essential qualities you judge people on for their suitabilty to be the president? Wouldn’t actually staying on a bike be one of the criteria too?
I think we need more carbon dioxide because it is good for trees, plants and vegetables. Therefore, I support the decision by President Bush on this issue although I think that he should not have mentioned possible regulation of CO2 in a couple speaches during the 2000 campaign.
I also really don’t care much about minor differences in environmental policy when we are fighting an enemy that wants everyone to be Muslims and live in the 9th century.
And the trees will be all, like “Wait, don’t get rid of all the carbon dioxide, it’s good for me”, and GWB is all, “Don’t worry trees, I am working to produce more carbon dioxide for you, not like those Democrat losers who, like, want to kill you all”, and Anne Coulter goes “yeah and they’re all soooo ugly too”, as if I would vote for them.
It’s typical bush admin. If you look at all the oil businesses in the world, a lot of them are pursuing renewable energy because they see an end to oil supplies and they believe in global warming (shell, bp, for example). Look at the one company that doesn’t, exxon. Most companies (in general) agree that something should be done, a few are doing something (WWF climate savers program includes kodak, nike, and 8 other major us corporations), while one or two believe mitigating climate change will harm business. Guess who the bush admin went to when developing ‘policy?’
Ahh yes… yet another content-free post from the fair and balanced Old York Times. Maybe you should cross check that with PBS or the Al Franken show, too?
Ahh yes… yet another content-free post from the fair and balanced Old York Times. Maybe you should cross check that with PBS or the Al Franken show, too?
Thanks for sharing these insightful clips.
You know, your posts are worthless. What value do you think the above crap has? Not that I give a damn, but do you think the NYTimes is lying when it quotes from memos? Are they lying about the background of the people?
I don’t know. What value does your crap have? I don’t feel an urgency to post quotes or start threads on this forum from the (more conservative) publications that I read. But you certainly do. Do you feel intellectually heroic doing that?
Not that I give a damn, but do you think the NYTimes is lying when it quotes from memos?<<<
You certainly do give a damn or you would not be answering a post in a matter of seconds. I do not think the NYT is a credible source of political information, particularly in an election year. The NYT is pro Kerry which is OK with me, but they are also anti-Bush-- so I don’t consider the NYT slant. You obviously do, for obvious reasons.
Are they lying about the background of the people? <<
I don’t know. Do you? I don’t consider the editorial slant of that paper.
I would like to read political thought that doesn’t use the NYT or PBS etc as the source. I think that is weak. As weak as quoting the right (not that I disagree with that thought) and spouting that on a forum as absolute truth.
Well excuse me, I have to get back to reading a good book: How to Talk to a Liberal (if you must) by Ann Coulter. I obviously need to improve in this area.
Hey Ken, it seems that if you post anything about our administration you’ll hear that Kerry sucks. Weird huh? Kerry didn’t even come up in that initial post, or if he did you edited it. Anyway, do you know much about Nikola Tesla?
Don’t worry if you don’t know what the Senator’s position is today; he probably does not know either.
I guess if we are just going to banter the superficial soundbites by our candidates…my favorite line forKerry was from the Crossfire interview with Jon Stewart:
“GWB says Kerry’s rhetoric doesn’t match his record but GWB’s record doesn’t match his record”
NYT may be slanted but I hardly think that getting news from the National Review is a beacon of objectivity.
Hey Ken, it seems that if you post anything about our administration you’ll hear that Kerry sucks. Weird huh? Kerry didn’t even come up in that initial post, or if he did you edited it. Anyway, do you know much about Nikola Tesla?
Weird, yes. But not nearly as funny as every time someone in the Bush Administration (including GWB himself) says something like “well, the Clinton Administration did the same thing”. And they say irony is dead…
Not much about Tesla, except that he was brilliant. What about him?
Ken, I’m still quite young and have much to read ahead of me. However, everything I’ve learned up until today points towards Mr. Tesla’s ideas being the most practical way to banish the carbon-dioxide problem that is threatening us while living in a world where our energy needs are ever accelerating. I’ll go so far as to say this electrician is the greatest seed of peace in modern history. His genius is devestating, I think you’ll find your time well spent reading about his gifts to humanity. I brought him up here because there are major problems to be dealt with and we need to be a part of the solution. I firmly believe he has given us the key, now we need to go find that damn lock!