As the recorded averages reveal more and more that we are in a planetary cooling trend, the new ECOconomy is changing the term from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change," or so I've been told. At least guys like Michael Crichton have said stuff like that (in his book, State of Fear, and in speeches before Congress.) But is it true? Have "they" now traded in the phrase "global warming" for the phrase "climate change" in hopes that people won't deny the reality of it, even if the world isn't really getting hotter?
In recent videos published on youtube by the State Department, you can observe their use of phrases like "climate change" and refer vaguely to it's challenges as they enter into international talks on "clean energy." There are so many buzzwords and nearly all of them are being used in a pseudo-scientific manner, including "clean energy," and we have yet to cleanly define those terms. In fact millions of dollars are spent internationally to create talking points like these even before experts have fully qualified what the standards are. I digress.
The fact is, if we are "we" then who is "they?" And if there is a "they," are they really coordinating a phrase change. Well, no not really. The fact is that there is a movement and phrases catch on here and there and we go with the most simple, memorable explanation whether it is true or not. My sisters and I used to joke about "respecting movie knowledge," meaning if we can't remember where we heard something, from a book or in a movie, well - that's OK, we respect movie knowledge so share your thought anyway. I think many Americans often feel the same way. This is how slogans and facts get handed around. And in this information age we forget that this is happening and that not all facts are equal (said another way, not all facts are either the whole truth or the truth at all.) So why do we refer to Climate Change? Is this really a new face on Global Warming? The answer: not really. Here is one way to know this is true... let's look at the past.
Here is part of a speech from G.W. Bush back in 2002. he was giving this speech about a new "Blue Sky" legislation that was drafted under his administration:
"America and the world share this common goal: we must foster economic growth in ways that protect our environment. We must encourage growth that will provide a better life for citizens, while protecting the land, the water, and the air that sustain life.
In pursuit of this goal, my government has set two priorities: we must clean our air, and we must address the issue of global climate change. We must also act in a serious and responsible way, given the scientific uncertainties. While these uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the human factors that contribute to climate change. Wise action now is an insurance policy against future risks.
I have been working with my Cabinet to meet these challenges with forward and creative thinking. I said, if need be, let's challenge the status quo. But let's always remember, let's do what is in the interest of the American people.
Today, I'm confident that the environmental path that I announce will benefit the entire world. This new approach is based on this common-sense idea: that economic growth is key to environmental progress, because it is growth that provides the resources for investment in clean technologies.
This new approach will harness the power of markets, the creativity of entrepreneurs, and draw upon the best scientific research. And it will make possible a new partnership with the developing world to meet our common environmental and economic goals.
We will apply this approach first to the challenge of cleaning the air that Americans breathe. Today, I call for new Clean Skies legislation that sets tough new standards to dramatically reduce the three most significant forms of pollution from power plants, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury.
We will cut sulfur dioxide emissions by 73 percent from current levels. We will cut nitrogen oxide emissions by 67 percent. And, for the first time ever, we will cap emissions of mercury, cutting them by 69 percent. These cuts will be completed over two measured phases, with one set of emission limits for 2010 and for the other for 2018.
This legislation will constitute the most significant step America has ever taken -- has ever taken -- to cut power plant emissions that contribute to urban smog, acid rain and numerous health problems for our citizens.
So as you can see here the phrase "climate change" was used all the way back in 2002. And in this case, Bush was honestly saying that we could get behind certain changes with regard to this issue because, well hey, it can actually bolster the economy. He made the direct connection and spoke about it honestly.So, what happened to the plan. Here is an amazing bit of history:
Most Americans share this view, according to a new poll released by the nonprofit Clean Air Trust. The survey of registered and likely voters, conducted for the Clean Air Trust, found that, by almost a three to one margin, voters reject the notion that electric power companies should be able to buy pollution credits from another company rather than clean up their own emissions.
That result held true even when the Bush cap and trade plan was described in the White House's own terms, claiming that the proposal would "lead to faster reductions in air pollution at less cost by relying on the efficiency of the market."
"If it were up to the voting public, the Bush plan would be dead on arrival," said Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust.
O'Donnell noted that the survey questions were worded carefully in order not to load the results.
"The truth is, once the voting public understands what the Bush plan is all about, they flatly reject it, even if we don't point out that it will encourage irresponsible corporate behavior," added O'Donnell.
O'Donnell noted that 53 percent of surveyed Republicans, 69 percent of Independents, and 70 percent of Democrats oppose the cap and trade proposal. However, 70 percent of voters said they supported tougher enforcement of existing clean air laws.
Voters also said they would be less likely, by a 45 percent to 10 percent margin, to vote for a candidate who supports the cap and trade proposal.
Here is a link to that full article:http://www.air-pollution.net/clearskies.htm
So, how is what Bush wanted to do any better? Well, we have studied the affect of mercury and the two other elements and we are seeing the practical nature of those changes today. Mercury has almost been completely removed from computer manufacturing and if we would implement the other restraints we would actually see a reduction of smog in our cities. So one difference would be the actual science involved. At the same time, there is an admitting of what we do not know and a reasonable restraint with regard to it. That is very different than our current President calling skeptical people "climate change deniers." In fact, back in 2005 when it was time to vote on Clear Skies Legislation, Obama voted against it. Historically, Obama also funneled $9 Billion to the coal industry at around the same political timeframe. Hmmmm?
So, what can we learn from this? That only a few years ago Congress as well as the public thought that CAP N TRADE was a crock and that it did not work! And so now this is (again) what is the LARGEST HOPE for Climate Change!?!?!?!?!
You tell me... what has changed?
No comments:
Post a Comment