One argument in defense of George W. Bush's lack of action on climate change is some variation of this: "Bill Clinton wasn't any better ... he never sent the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate."
This is true. But it also ignores one important fact.
The science of climate change has improved dramatically since the mid-'90s. In its 1995 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarized our knowledge about climate change by saying ...
... the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on the climate ...
This is weak brew, and given the mixed evidence connecting human activities with warming, it was not at all clear exactly how much action to address climate change was warranted.
Around the time George W. Bush took office, however, the IPCC's 2001 report came out. In it, they concluded:
In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
And recently, the IPCC's 2007 report (PDF) concluded:
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
It is clear that our understanding of the climate has dramatically improved since Clinton was in office. Today, the evidence that humans are now in control of the climate is overwhelming.
Lack of action by the Bush administration has to account for a much stronger scientific consensus on climate change. There is, basically, no credible dispute on this question. Comparisons to Clinton, who was in office when our knowledge of the climate was much poorer, are not apt.
Climate-news poem: Breath-catching edition
Comments
View as Flat
Earth Shaman Posted 10:34 am
19 Apr 2007
Bush V Clinton
Methinks Senor Bush is a little overwhelmed to do anything logical,Although his not signing the Kyoto treaty was proper.I would also call for the administration to recall all public moneys for our panelists for the IPCC panel as not a one of them understands earth science and the history of the cataclysmic and not quite as cataclysmic periods in our history that have created the evidence that they have made many assumptions about and even admit as theory.There has been way too much damage to the economy and the psychology of the world over the Greenhouse gas fiasco.Yes there is alot of carbon,but look at the ice record when there was very little population and high carbon levels in the ice,that should have been their first clue.The gases on this planet are infused as frequency and we could remove all plant life here and still breathe for centurys,although we would have to import food.Guys ,the plants just dont make the oxygen on this planet,its not plant photosynthesis.I know many of the science guys will scoff at my not staying with their paradigm,but they will eventually have to come up to speed.This old earth scientist will tell them how their planet works ,little by little until they cease and desist ruining our economy and the education of our citizenry.
Earth Shaman
Permalink
mspelto Posted 10:58 am
19 Apr 2007
Missing an even more important fact
Clinton and Gore were out front helping lead the charge internationally on the issue. No congress wanted no part of it at the time, but as a professional glaciologist for 24 years, I know from internatinal science meetings that we were seen as a leader then. Today we are seen as being an anchor and it is all about the president in the minds of the international scientists I talk with.
mspelto
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 12:02 pm
19 Apr 2007
Fully Prepared
Quote from Australia's Prime Minister
>> "It hasn't snuck up on us," he said.
He says he was aware of the potential problems when he commissioned a report into the impact of the drought last November >>>
LOL, or as one professor stated
>> An emeritus professor in meteorology says the way the water crisis in Australia has been handled would be laughable if the consequences were not so dire.
"You just have to bend over backwards laughing if you have a macabre sense of humour." >>
LOL........I Have A Macabre Sense Of Humour....................
No one here on this site, no one anywhere.... all are in total denial and all are waiting for rain
Tis the end my friend
see Book
The Death of Clouds
omegafour.com
and find out what is REALLY happening and what YOU can do about it
Permalink
TokyoTom Posted 3:47 pm
19 Apr 2007
Too facile
Andrew, this fails to explain why Clinton allowed Gore to sign the Kyoto Protocol as it was, without insisting on the further legwork necessary to accommodate the requirements of involving China/India, as spelled out in the Senate resolution. Given the Senate's position, signing Kyoto and leaving things at that looks to have been rather empty indeed.
I'd like to see a further explanation of what Clinton and Gore were thinking and doing at that time.
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:14 pm
19 Apr 2007
Bill, Al, and Kyoto
That's easy. They were thinking that Gore would be picking up where the Big Dog left off. (Well, not with the dress, but, you know ...)
They didn't figure Gore could possibly lose all three of WV, Tenn, Ark, and they sure as hell didn't foresee Florida 2000.
No one could have predicted that the famously states-rights oriented Supreme Court "conservatives" (who are also famously hostile to equal protection claims) would concoct an argument by which a guy with no standing to sue could get into court and THEN be in a position to give him the White House -- on an equal protection claim -- by preventing a complete statewide recount in order to affirm the partisan decision of the top-state elections official (his campaign chair in the state).
Americans still have problems grappling with the fact that we have an illegitimate, court-appointed junta running the show.
That's reflected in these kinds of questions. But if the actual winner of the 2000 election had taken office rather than the loser, no one would be asking why Clinton left the heavy lifting on Kyoto in the Senate to him.
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 3:14 am
20 Apr 2007
Including China and India
TokyoTom-
I cannot answer the question of what Clinton and Gore were thinking. I suspect that the choice was between the Kyoto Protocol and nothing and they concluded that the KP was the better option.
One point I would add is that the "China is not reducing their emissions" argument is something of a red herring. Everyone knows that developing countries have to eventually reduce their emissions --- the question is who should take the first steps. I suspect that people who use the "China" argument use it because it's effective, not because it's a legitimate argument.
Regards
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:39 am
20 Apr 2007
Also,
It's worth noting another contrast. Clinton/Gore pushed global warming (not as much as the green community would have liked, but more than they're given credit for) not only against a higher degree of scientific uncertainty, but against unified political opposition and thoroughgoing public disinterest. The media wouldn't cover the stuff, the public didn't respond to it, and no legislator was about to risk anything for it.
In contrast, Bush is pushing against near-total scientific certainty, widespread political support, and growing public outcry.
For Clinton/Gore, acting on global warming more would have required extraordinary bravery and vision. For Bush, it would be easy.
www.grist.org
Permalink
phiggins Posted 3:49 am
20 Apr 2007
China
It's also misleading to compare the absolute emissions from China and the United States without mentioning the vastly different population sizes. I wrote a post at ClimatePolicy about this today (http://www.climatepolicy.org).
Permalink
hank Posted 12:36 pm
20 Apr 2007
Gore, 1995: see McKibben's book
McKibben quotes Gore about what he knew then needed to be done, and about how much less that that was possible with politics as they were at the time, in McKibben's book "Hope, Human and Wild" (1995).
Our copy's out of town or I'd look it up for you.
Amazon's excerpt pages don't include the quote from Gore, sorry.
But Gore was quite blunt, to McKibben. You should look it up.
He's known all along.
-- Hank Roberts
Permalink
EliRabett Posted 12:32 pm
24 Apr 2007
So I'll ask Michael Tobis' question
What do you do about silly posters like our friend Earth, who can't even get the denialist talking points right. For starters we have mentally confused:
"The gases on this planet are infused as frequency"
which wins the prize for pretentious and without meaning or clue. Then the simply (or better put confused and) wrong
"Yes there is alot of carbon,but look at the ice record when there was very little population and high carbon levels in the ice,that should have been their first clue."
Take a look at the Epica Dome C core going back 500kY, notice that CO2 never got over 290 ppm, and today is at 380. The Law Dome core shows the last 1000 years or so and captures the rapid recent rise.
There is much much more.
Permalink