Governor, not president, seen as head of U.S. fight
By Michael Gardner
SACRAMENTO – When the U.N. secretary-general extended an off-the-cuff invitation to participate in a global-warming conference in New York City, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger didn’t hesitate.
“Of course. I feel honored. Thank you,” Schwarzenegger answered without pause as he and Ban Ki-moon wrapped up a July tour of a San Jose company researching ways to limit greenhouse gases.
In contrast, President Bush has withstood growing international pressure to become more aggressive in setting a national agenda to curb global warming.
The world will be reminded of the stark difference between the two Republicans when Bush and Schwarzenegger take separate stages next week.
On Monday, Schwarzenegger will be at the United Nations to promote California’s landmark law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and urge all nations to answer what he considers one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century.
Schwarzenegger “has become the de facto president on the world stage because President Bush has been so absent,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a national advocacy group.
Bush, meanwhile, has invited leading nations to Washington Sept. 27 and Sept. 28 to begin drafting a long-term, largely voluntary program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with an eye on the effects on industry. His goal is to produce a framework by the end of next year that would guide international policy after 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol expires.
“We are at the point of renewal of the climate-change agenda,” said James Connaughton, chairman of the president’s Council on Environmental Quality.
Internationally, global warming is being blamed for drought-induced famines, a shrinking polar ice cap and killer heat waves. In California, Schwarzenegger has warned of drawn-out dry spells, forests turned into tinderboxes and damaging floods from early snow melt. Most scientists say greenhouse gas emissions – mostly from cars, refineries and industry – are a major contributor to global warming.
Since taking office, Schwarzenegger has been a dominant force driving U.S. attitudes toward global warming.
“While the Bush administration doesn’t have a great record on climate change, we are very impressed with what the governor of California is doing,” said Gregory Barker, a member of the British Parliament since 2001.
“Governor Schwarzenegger has not been talking. He’s been doing,” said Barker, the Conservative Party’s voice on environmental affairs.
John Bruton, the European Union’s ambassador to the United States, said his member countries look to California and its governor for leadership.
“When Europeans think of innovation, they think of California,” said Bruton, the former prime minister of Ireland. “If California says the problem of climate change is real, we have a sense California knows what it’s talking about.”
Many Europeans are skeptical of Bush’s commitment, particularly since he has failed to endorse Kyoto’s goals to curb global warming.
“It is no secret that across Europe, that has been a great disappointment,” Barker said. “Without America involved, there can be no solution to climate change.”
Schwarzenegger also has openly criticized the president on the issue.
Through Linda Adams, the governor’s top environmental adviser, Schwarzenegger gave the president a no-confidence vote on the eve of the two global warming meetings.
“We’re assuming there will need to be a new president before we’re afforded meaningful action,” said Adams, a Democrat.
Schwarzenegger has threatened to take the Bush administration to court over California’s right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. He maneuvered around the president to craft such agreements between states and has met independently with world leaders in Canada, France and England.
He also secured a commitment from some Republican governors as well as the mayor of New York to participate in reduction programs.
All of this does not come without cost – financial and political. Schwarzenegger has been criticized for promoting industry-friendly incentives over tighter regulations and for spending tax dollars on globe-trotting.
Some consumer watchdogs also criticized Adams and others for taking a spring trip to Europe financed by the California Climate Action Registry, which receives funding from regulated industries. Some business leaders also joined the trip, giving them access to decision-makers.
“Big-business opponents of greenhouse gas reductions bought high-quality face time,” said Carmen Balber of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.
Nevertheless, some prominent Democrats don’t fault Schwarzenegger’s trips.
“The governor has to go because Bush isn’t doing his job,” said state Attorney General Jerry Brown, a former governor. “As the leader of California, he’s a very visible national figure. People pay attention to him.”
Brown did say he was encouraged by the president’s call for a summit on the issue.
“It’s significant George Bush is now using the word ‘global warming’ and talking about it as a serious threat and promising to do something,” Brown said. “It’s a fundamental shift of position.”
Joel Schwartz, an analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said politicians and the public need to keep in mind that reducing greenhouse gas emissions could force higher energy prices and squeeze supplies.
“No matter where you are, people are going to have a tough time giving that up,” Schwartz said.
Schwartz is skeptical of the dire warnings. “Climate change is not a crisis,” he said. “The thing we should be most afraid of is rushing to foolish policy.”
The president’s platform includes working with big emitters such as China and India. He also wants to curb rampant deforestation because trees take carbon dioxide, one of the main greenhouse gases, out of the air. And he wants to strike technology-sharing deals.
Bush believes more can be accomplished through voluntary programs that offer incentives. He also wants to see more progress from India and China before inflicting the pain of mandatory emission controls on U.S. companies.
Initially a global warming skeptic, Bush said in a recent letter to world leaders that “science has deepened our understanding of climate change and opened new possibilities for confronting it.”
The president added that he wants “special emphasis on how major economies can, in close cooperation with the private sector, accelerate the development and deployment of clean technologies.”
European leaders say they are looking to Bush to provide a clear signal of U.S. direction.
“Business needs certainty about the regulatory regime,” said Bruton, the European Union ambassador.
Barker, the member of Britain’s Parliament, said the United States can no longer avoid tough choices.
“It’s not a question of pass or pay,” he said. “You have to play this one.”
. . .
Related
Global warming due to natural 1,500-year cycle, say experts
Chilling truth about ‘global warming’ hypocrisy
China says one-child policy helps protect climate
Majority Of Scientists Don’t Support Man Made Warming Theory
2 responses so far ↓
Ron Kling // September 22, 2007 at 6:15 pm
When talking about global warming, there are a few questions that must be dealt with.
First, is climate warming? The answer, though not definitive yet, is probably yes. We can readily see some evidence of that happening.
The Earth is a dynamic system, which means it is constantly in flux. Average temperatures are continually moving up or down. Equilibrium would mean that the system was dead. In spite of what Al Gore says, there never has been a time of equilibrium in the system, and that’s a good thing.
Second, if temps are going up, what is the cause? Is it Man’s contribution of greenhouse gases? Conventional wisdom (as portrayed in most of the media, anyway) says ‘yes’. But the truth is that that is a hypothesis, not even a full-fledged theory yet, and certainly not an established scientific fact. Let me explain:
Obviously we can’t put the Earth into a laboratory and experiment on it. Experiments must be done on climate models. Scientists formulate a hypothesis, plug their assumptions into the model, and then see if the model can predict reality.
Even the best climate models don’t predict reality very well. Heck, the Old Farmer’s Almanac does a better job of predicting weather patterns and climate trends.
So what’s going on? Is it worse than even the scientists have predicted?
That’s one explanation offered by the manmade global warming enthusiasts, but a simpler, scientific, and less hysterical explanation is simply that one or more of the assumptions programmed into the model are incorrect. That just means the hypothesis is flawed. It does not prove or disprove the scientists opinions. Garbage in, garbage out, as the saying goes.
So how do we get from a flawed hypothesis to a sound scientific theory? The short answer is: we don’t. The hysteria is due to politics and propaganda.
How do we get from politics and propaganda to an established scientific fact? Again, we don’t, obviously. What we get is more politics and perhaps public policy.
Why? In two words: money and power.
More taxes. Higher prices on energy. Control of energy sources. Sales of books, ‘carbon offsets’, and myriad ‘green’ merchandise.
Does it bother the True Believer that Al Gore has 200 million dollars in the bank from selling carbon offsets, which do nothing to actaully help the environment? That his prediction of a 10-foot rise in sea level is echoed by not one scientist anywhere? No, of course not. Some people want to be scared. Does it bother them that Gore sued his ‘mentor’ Roger Revelle, to shut him up when Revelle objected to his name being used in Gore’s environmental campaign? Again, of course not. Impending catastophe is supremely sexy.
Does it bother the True Believer to learn that many of the scientists involved in the IPCC project sued to have their names removed from the report?
Does it bother the True Believer that the grandfather of global warming politics is a man named Maurice Strong, a big UN muckety-muck who happens to be a eugenicist and de-populationist? No, of course not. Those same people craving catastrophe probably don’t understand the implications of those words.
But politics and global evil aside, should we be concerned about climate change? The answer to that is an unqualified ‘maybe’. So wouldn’t it be nice to just let the scientists work without all the propaganda and hysteria?
Despite the claims of ‘consensus’, the science is very, very far from being settled. Do you realize there are still scientists studying gravity? And you thought that had been ’settled’ long ago, didn’t you?
Bottom line: Don’t let anybody take your money or freedom based on a hypothesis. And real science is not done by a show of hands. Recognize the doomsayers, propagandists, and slanted journalists (and bloggers) for who they are and get on with life.
But don’t necessarily abandon your ‘green’ practices. They’ll save you money in the long run and conservation is always a good thing.
pjwalker911 // September 22, 2007 at 6:41 pm
A very well reasoned comment my dear Mr Kling. I might add that both local weather patterns and climate as a whole are naturally of concern to everyone in society including land owners, pilots, sea-captains, farmers and really pretty much everybody on earth. Nobody is saying that we should not be prepared to deal with changes in the weather or the climate as a whole. For example, we should be prepared for increases in hurricane activity if that is the result of natural warming.
What we should not do is to allow hysteria to run our government or to serve as a pretext to social engineering.
Lastly, those who know anthropogenic global warming is just another hoax of the globalist elites, also know the importance of a clean environment where the air is healthy to breathe, where the water is pure and safe to drink, where the trees are managed responsibly, where experimental crops are not allowed to run amok, where food is organic and nutritious, where the use of chemicals is highly restricted and where the people control the government and the military, not the bankers. It is these bankers and their investment partners who care nothing about our country, our environment or our health. They must be routed out because they are really the root of our problems and it is only Ron Paul, our modern day Andrew Jackson, who can and will hit the ground running after these bankers in full attack mode.