Posted on 06/26/2006 6:59:40 PM PDT by John Lenin
|
Bush: Climate change is 'serious problem'
US President George W. Bush said it was time to move past a debate over whether human activity is a significant factor behind global warming and into a discussion of possible remedies. "I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There's a debate over whether it's manmade or naturally caused," Bush told reporters.
"We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary to enable us to achieve a couple of big objectives: One, be good stewards of the environment; two, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil, for economic reasons as for national security reasons," he said. Bush cited "clean-coal technology," efforts to develop automobiles powered by hydrogen or ethanol, and his push for the United States to develop significant new nuclear energy capabilities. "The truth of the matter is, if this country wants to get rid of its greenhouse gases, we've got to have the nuclear power industry be vibrant and viable," he said.
Copyright AFP 2005, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium
|
Absentee President.
say what??
Who are the greenie-weenies within the WH who have gotten through with statements like "America is addicted to oil" and "global warming is a serious problem"......??? Someone is putting one-sided AlGore-pap in front of President Bush and on this matter he is not getting full information.
I think it makes perfect sense. And if he's pushing nuclear fuel, all the better.
I think it is evident that the earth is on a warming trend. Whether or not it's man made, it can't hurt to beging trying cleaner fuels--especially when they ease our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
Gore, is that you?
You got that right. These statements are extremely irresponsible coming from a President. A goon like Gore, okay- but Bush?
If you look at the context of Bush's remarks, he's saying:
One, be good stewards of the environment
Enviro-wackos should practice what they preach and stop blaming my administration
two, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil, for economic reasons as for national security reasons,"
Enviro-wackos and Dims need to stop blocking our access to domestic oil production
America may be addicted to oil, but our enemies are even more utterly dependent on our petrodollars. If we can survive and prosper indefinitely without giving OPEC and various other tyrants our money for their oil, then these countries would not stand. It's as much about defeating our enemies by rendering their principle product effectively obsolete as anything.
Exactly
We will see how this plays out. Will we sign Kyoto now ?
If the climate is warming, there will be some things we will have to do. However, we still don't know the cause: it may be a change in solar radiation. Still, we may need a response.
Allowing nuclear power would be a good move.
Trying to do without oil would be foolish. If we were to use no petroleum at all, the price would drop, and someone else would use it instead of us. Petroleum will be used, one way or another. That is why a policy of making us independent of foreign oil, or "weening us off our addiction to oil", is foolish, and will not work.
Kyoto has been dead a long time. It ain't coming back.
This is a really wierd comment by Bush. He seems to be saying "Yes, there is much disagree about the degree to which human activities are contributing to the recent warming trend. But let's assume there is no disagreement on this issue and craft solutions."
First of all, if human activities aren't materially contributing to the problem, then there are no solutions. But if thinks we are contributing, then he should say so.
It only makes sense if he's really saying "Unfortunately, we can't say for sure whether humans are or are not causing this warming trend, and we might not be able to determine that until it's too late. But, we owe it to our children and grand children to be very risk averse on this issue. Also, as luck would have it, the potential solutions to that hypothetical cause and effect relationship would also go a long way toward weakening the crazy islamists and toward otherwise cleaning up our environment. Accordingly, we should pursue them agressively. But if we're going to get serious about this, stop living in fantasy land and start building some 'nucular' power plants."
If that's essentially what he's saying, I would tend to agree with him, but it would be nice if he could articulate that in something approaching Standard American English rather than in a series of contradictions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
