While PM Tony Blair predicts that “[l]eaders of the G8 richest nations will agree a plan for global action to tackle climate change at next month’s summit at Gleneagles,” and, reports the NZ Herald, “President Bush has refused to admit the growing body of scientific evidence about climate change,” editorials are getting hotter:
Climate Change: Spinning global science
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD
“When it comes to global warming, scientific ignorance is bliss: No worries about devastating storms, droughts and dying species, just pleasant forecasts for warm summers. White House officials are happy to spread that joy. … [T]he Bush team will always prefer ‘let’s pretend’ to science about global warming and, probably, other vital subjects where the world’s gains in knowledge are outstripping U.S. progress.”
Time for action, not more hot air
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER EDITORIAL
“Challenged by British Prime Minister Tony Blair to help slow global warming, President Bush responded Tuesday that ‘my administration isn’t waiting around to deal with the issue; we’re acting’.
 ”He’s not acting fast enough for scientists, states and industry. They want more than the weak voluntary measures and calls for more research that Bush has reluctantly offered up for four years.”
COOL BIZ CAMPAIGN (Asahi Shimbun)
“Men sporting the so-called Cool Biz look-no jacket, no tie-are now seen in greater numbers in Tokyo’s government and business districts. The casual summer fashion, so named by the Environment Ministry, is meant to help businessmen look and feel cool even if the office air conditioner is turned down a notch or two.
“Under its proposed nationwide movement in the fight against global warming, the government is asking offices around Japan to set their air conditioner temperature at 28 degrees.”
Then there’s the obligatory See?-I-can-be-balanced-like-NPR-too au contrare editorial, this a guest editorial from the Desert Dispatch in Barstow, Calif.:
GUEST EDITORIAL: Governor speaks on global warming
“‘I say the debate is over,’ Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said of global warming, as reported in the Sacramento Bee. ‘We know the signs. We see the threat. We know the time for action is now.’
“Actually, the debate is ongoing and lively. As astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas, research scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass., wrote in 2001: ‘[M]easurements of atmospheric temperatures … show that no warming has occurred in the atmosphere in the last 50 years. This is just the period in which human-made carbon dioxide has been pouring into the atmosphere and according to the climate studies, the resultant atmospheric warming should be clearly evident’.
“Californians should not be forced to comply with the faulty policies imposed by a governor who needs better science advice.”
Can you imagine those macho dunderheads in the White House suggesting office workers turn down the air conditioning and don lighter clothing?
hi susan….it would never work…too much hot air from
multiple windbags in the American Petroleum Institute(aka the Whitehouse)…lol…robert
Yeah, remember what happened to Jimmy Carter when he turned down the thermostats and put on a sweater.
I wonder though if most Americans might not be ready for “the Japanese solution” by now. If only we had leadership!
Ha! Just what I was thinking too … macho cowboys (even the fake ones) don’t wear sweaters!
Thanks Susan,
Looks like people are catching on to the “Act Locally” bit.
The G8 summit is coming in a month. Global Climate change is expected to be one of the central issues discussed. In anticipation of the summit, the Science Academies of many of the leading industrialized nations issued a joint statement yesterday (June 7) urging the leaders of their countries to make a commitment to immediately begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Scientist Online is calling the statement “unprecedented.”
Signatories of the statement include Britain’s Royal Society and the national science academies of France, Russia, Germany, the United States, Japan, Italy, Canada, Brazil, China, and India.
Full diary HERE.
It seems as if W is about to give into the facts, and admit that human activity causes global warming (or global climate change, I can never remember which one is the Democratic term and which is the Republican term).
BUT: NOW COMES THE HARD PART. How important is it, and what do we do about it?
Based on a purely economic argument, it MIGHT work out to be better to keep on warming up the world. That way, people in China could have central heating and cars, and people in India could have air conditioning and cars. Sure, a few coastal cities would have to have massive sea walls constructed, and a few contries might have to be abandoned, and a few coral reefs might die, but there are some real social benefits to having enough energy to go around.
Another option might be to move quickly to nuclear power. That’s the option that France has taken, which allows them to look good on the global warming issue. But do we really want to replace all of the coal and gas fired power plants with nukes? That’s a lot of nukes. And China and India would want them, too. Massive proliferation problem.
Another option might be the “freeze to death in the dark” option. That is, apply pure socialist policy and bring everybody to the same global energy use per capita. The problem with this one is that there are a lot of people in China, so to bring them up to the point of central heat plus one tiny car would mean a lot of cold Americans without SUV-powered vacations to the Grand Canyon.
Then there is the blue-sky “alternative energy and conservation” approach, which sounds good but doesn’t add up. It’s tough to keep up this viewpoint on a cold Albany night in January when it’s 10 below outside and you solar heating system ain’t working. I know that this is the option we all want, but the numbers simply don’t add up.
So, the next phase of the global warming debate is going to be a serious test of liberal principals, because we will have to finally face up to the FACT that Americans use energy way out of proportion–even in comparison to Europeans–on a global per-capita basis. Which is it?
I vote for number three, but suspect that number one will win out…
It’s worth noting that Sallie Baliunas is an astrophysicist, not a climatologist. Her work on climate change is based on the work of researchers many of whom have refuted her interpretation of their works. It’s also worth noting that she has positions at organizations funded by energy industry. She held a similarly skeptical stance about CFCs damaging the ozone layer.
To be fair, none of this means she’s wrong. It’s just some additional context.