My post yesterday said what needs to be said about Bush's "new" climate strategy, but this passage from Dana Milbank's hilarious column today is too good to pass up:
"Will the new framework consist of binding commitments or voluntary commitments?" asked CBS News's Jim Axelrod.
"In this instance, you have a long-term, aspirational goal," [Bush environmental advisor Jim] Connaughton answered.
Aspirational goal? Like having the body you want without diet or exercise? Or getting rich without working?
"I'm confused," Axelrod said. "Does that mean there will be targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions, and that everybody will be making binding commitments?"
"The commitment at the international level will be to a long-term, aspirational goal," the Bush aide repeated.
Axelrod had his answer. "Voluntary," he concluded.
"Well," said Connaughton, "I want to be careful about the word 'voluntary.'"
Connaughton may want to be careful, but the plan the White House outlined yesterday listed no concrete targets or dates, no enforcement mechanism and no penalties for noncompliance. It also wouldn't take effect until four years after Bush leaves office. It was, rather, a call to spend the final 18 months of the Bush presidency forming an aspirational goal.
Everything you always wanted to know about EPA greenhouse gas regulations, but were afraid to ask
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 4:48 am
01 Jun 2007
Well, why don't India and China just go ahead and cut their emissions.
I mean, what are they waiting for?
And why isn't Grist prodding them to do so?
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
odograph Posted 5:14 am
01 Jun 2007
What is india ( 272212 / 1446777 ) * 100 = 19% of our emissions?
per: Each Country's Share of Global CO2 Emissions
i know bush "punched up" the words "india and china" ... and i know why ... it plays with irrational nationalists.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:06 am
01 Jun 2007
wouldn't it be passing ridiculous for the #1 country in greenhouse emissions to say they have to wait for you to go first?
Maybe...or maybe not. Right now, the people at Grist are telling "us" to reduce our personal CO2. Great, I say, why should I do that if Bill Gates spews CO2 from his mansion?
Okay, but first of all China is due to exceed us in CO2 output. India next. They should be the leaders and be showing the world. In this case, it really doesn't matter who acts first...any reduction benefits both the reducer and the others. What is more, the reducer then claims the moral high ground. It should be able to levy import taxes on all countries that have not reduced CO2 as much as it, and thus regain any value lost due to reduction of CO2.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
odograph Posted 7:55 am
01 Jun 2007
I did, by about 50%, and not just because it saved me about 50% in energy expenses.
(Actually I cleaned up on energy rebates from my state and federal government as well ... rebates that I the good conservative did not support.)
That's really part of the funny thing here. I think there are lots of "happy lives" to be found in zigging when the world (or energy market) zags.
Really the people who scream the loudest about carbon taxes/coupons or fuel prices are the people who are fearful that they can't change and/or be happy.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:01 am
01 Jun 2007
Hey,
I jumped for joy when I saw that insulating my water heater pipes reduced by monthly energy bill by $6.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
larrycham Posted 2:44 am
02 Jun 2007
A pervasive change in consciousness is our best hope for developing a sustainable future. -- Thomas Berry
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:26 pm
02 Jun 2007
I join DR and others in feeling frustration at this "aspirational"/"voluntary" sh*t.
On a side note about Mark Shields, with reference to some other Gristmill threads on religious people going green, he is an excellent example of what I have written about from time to time, to the effect that the pro-environmentalist words of popes and other Catholic hierarchs sound beautiful, but will amount to nothing if the Catholic faithful do not already have a sense of the great value of all Creation, and of our serious moral responsibility to care for it.
From what I know about him, Shields is a pretty saintly character: his politics are great, always emphasizing social justice issues; and he himself is committed to certain charitable activities, for which he has received recognition. I would love to meet him, and to have him over to dinner.
But it is meaningful that in preparing for the NewsHour, he did not bother to understand the reaction of the environmental community at all deeply. Why not? What is he waiting for?
It would be great if David Roberts could meet up with him at some point, when David is in DC.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink