[The Raven]

This editorial conflicts with the Drudge hysteria.

The problem with the NYT "solution" is growth. The combustion of natural gas will soon bring emissions back to current levels (with coal)

They just delay the same result by 4 years or so. And at great costs.

[Ken in Denver]

First, carbon dioxide can hardly be a pollutant. Does no one these days remember being taught about the carbon dioxide/oxygen cycle- animals take in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide and plants take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen via photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide is also produced by all forms of combustion of organic material, whether it be power production or wildfires, internal combustion engines or decomposing vegetation. Using "clean fuels" won't reduce carbon dioxide at all, although other emissions such as sulfur dioxides may be reduced. In fact, synthetically produced clean fuels such as "clean coal" or hydrogen require energy to produce them. Most advocates of various solutions to the cabon dioxide "problem" fail to look at the entire energy prodution cyle involved, for example, the power production needed to recharge battery powered automobiles. If atmospheric warming is in fact occurring, and is caused by man's activities (not proven) the most straight-forward solution is nuclear power, a clean, safe, proven, currently available technology.

[texson66]

People,people, learn the truth about GoreBull Warming by clicking on the Taz!

[Tarheel-CRH]

Outrageous! Bush has dismissed science in favor of politically correct environmentalism.

[Tribune7]

Nukes are the answer. (That would be a great song title)

[SW6906]

"switching to cleaner fuels, investing in "clean coal" technologies..."

Kinda hard to do, NYT, when your beloved President Clinton nationalized the nation's largest deposits of clean coal in Utah, making them a park in order to enrich his buddies in Indonesia.......

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The problem with Kyoto is (was for the US) its become little more than a transfer payment system from the people who produce to the people who don't.

[pjd]

Apparently, other threads here on FR dissect the NYT spin on the report and it doesn't represent a change in the Bush Administration policy.

Global Warming is really two issues: 1) Is the Earth warming? 2) Does Human activity play a role?

Anyone even remoely familiar with Earth's geological history knows that the Earth is only just coming out of the last Ice Age and is heading for a 100 million year long inter-glacial period where temperatures are higher than what we've been used to. That is inevitable.

To blame warming on Human activity is merely a political opportunity. As the temperatures continue to (naturally) warm, the politicians will continue to blame Human activity and insist that we need even more controls and regulations. Since the environment touches everything, everything is fair-game for government control as long as the people can be fooled into beliving that Human activity is the cause.

Our real goal should be, not to simply dispute Global Warming, since we know it is a part of Earth's natural cycle. Instead, we should be clearly demonstrating to people the naturalness of warming, and the futility of Human activity to affect it.

That is the only way we can win.

[finnman69]

People REALLY should read the actual report and NOT trust the NY Times editorial to get the facts on what has been announced, when it has been announced and what the Bush administration has essentially released in this report.

Click here

The summary could be some elements of global warming and the effects of climate change are real, but Bush's proposals include VOLUNTARY reductions in emissions.