Via David Roberts, Reuters put out a timeline on the evolution of Bush's global warming rhetoric since he took office in 2001. In March 2001, he voiced his opposition to Kyoto. In June 2001, he said he wasn't really sure if humans are causing global warming. June 2002, he called the EPA's report on the dangers of global warming "bureaucratic" hot air. In July 2005, he admitted that "an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem." In January 2007, he mentioned global warming in his State of the Union address, and by August of this year, he decided to invite the leaders of the most-emitting nations together in Washington to talk about what to do about it.
Which brings us today, where the "Major Economies" summit is going down over at the State Department. In his address this morning, James L. Connaughton, who chairs the Council on Environmental Quality, told the gathered leaders that they'll be "talking about each of us developing national commitments beyond 2012." And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice echoed what the administration has been pushing since they finally came around to admitting climate change is real and caused by humans:
First, we should agree upon a long-term goal for greenhouse gas reduction. Climate change is a generational challenge, and it requires a serious long-term commitment to reverse the growth in global emissions to the point where we can stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. We should do this, as we agreed in the UN Framework Convention, in a timeframe that allows the environment to adapt and in a way that ensures continued global economic development.
Our second task is to establish mid-term national targets and programs to reach our common broader goal. Let me stress that this is not a one-size-fits-all effort. Every country will make its own decisions, reflecting its own needs and its own interests, its own sources of energy and its own domestic politics. Though united by common goals and collective responsibilities, all nations should tackle climate change in the ways that they deem best.
And what they're pushing is this: lofty, far-off goals that sound good on paper but don't get anything done, voluntary cuts decided upon by each country separately, and prioritizing economic growth at any cost. While they're encouraging country-by-country goals, they're threatening to veto the landmark energy bill being negotiated in the House and Senate, the Water Resources Development Act recently passed, and any climate bill that makes it through this Congress. The Bush administration is still not taking the threat of global warming seriously -- nor are they intending to do much about it while in office.
--Kate Sheppard
