Washington Post Greenwashes Bush

Why on Earth did the Washington Post give credence to the idea that President Bush has undergone a miraculous climate change conversion? Yes, he acknowledged that global warming may in fact be real, but come on...

For years, Bush bristled privately at what he considered sky-is-falling alarmism by the liberal, elitist Hollywood crowd. The clatter over climate change, according to friends and advisers, seemed to him more like a political agenda than a rational response to known facts. But ever so gradually, they say, Bush's views have evolved. He has found the science increasingly persuasive and believes more needs to be done, especially after a set of secret briefings last winter. A former aide said Bush's staff even developed models for a market-based cap on greenhouse emissions.

If there’s any truth in this, it’s surely not decisive. Remember: Bush’s touted road-to-Damascus transformation on climate change has been apparent in rhetoric only. There's not a single policy shift to speak of to support the Washington Post headline of a greening Bush agenda, though it didn't stop the paper from detailing the "evidence" of the "evolution."

Here it is, and why it's suspect:

Bush cited the danger of climate change in his State of the Union address for the first time.

Don't be fooled. Here's the extent of the mention, from the speech:

America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change. (Applause.)

Say what you will about President Bush, he is an astute enough politician to craft a veneer of progress to ward off political suicide without actually saying -- or committing to -- anything new.

A few points worth remembering: The State of the Union address fell around the same time as the release of the peer-reviewed summary report of the IPCC. The report, authored by hundreds of scientists and researchers, found global warming to be "unequivocal" and human beings the "very likely" driver. The scientists' findings echoed the common sense conclusions of the National Academies, the Royal Society, the Hadley Centre and the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Office, among others. But the IPCC report was hailed for its scientific objectivity and prowess, and it removed any remaining uncertainties as justification for delay.

That's why, at the exact same time, corporate and Evangelical leaders -- the Bush base -- had united with scientists in urgent calls to action from Washington.

So Bush dished out the goods: Climate change is real, he said.

But it was an admission given under false pretenses. Behind those frail words was a complete absence of intention to move the ball forward. And as the science of climatology evolved, so too did the Bush effort to censor it.

But this year, the Bush administration's well-know manipulation of climate science became front-page news. Here's the ugly conclusion from the recent report of The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee:

The Bush administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.

Bush proposed a plan to cut gasoline consumption and, by extension, greenhouse gases.

Bush's plan to cut gas consumption is what spurred America's ethanol boom and bust, without a single benefit to curbing climate change. Not only that, while Bush showered US agribusiness with the big ethanol gift it lobbied for, the rest of the world has been forced to pay the huge costs of mounting global food insecurity.

Devoting US corn crops to fuel has caused world grain stocks to shrink and food prices to soar to record highs. The UN now reports that 40 nations are facing critical food shortages from the explosion in the biofuels sector, with food riots on the rise.

Bush convened a conference of major world polluters to start work on an international accord to follow the Kyoto Protocol.

Bush's first climate change meeting of the top 16 world economies was held in September. The meeting infuriated world leaders who are serious about a post-Kyoto accord for its lack of substance. From the BBC:

Some visiting delegates were outraged by what they said was a stream of spin running through the speech. One (who understandably asked not to be named) said: "This is a total charade. The president has said he will lead on climate change but he won't agree binding emissions, while other nations will. He says he will lead on technology but then he asks other countries to contribute funds, without saying how much he'll contribute himself. It's humiliating for him - a total humiliation."

The problem? Bush's primary objection to an international climate reduction and mitigation regime is his resistance to mandatory, binding targets. It's a dead-on-arrival position that makes the US an automatic roadblock in international climate discussions. Evidence Bali.

Bush even invited former vice president Al Gore for a 40-minute talk about global warming.

Great PR move for Bush. But it seems as though 40 minutes of flapping their gums didn't achieve any climate progress, or any real bonding between the two. In less than a month Gore would head to Bali and urge delegates to reach agreement on a post-Kyoto roadmap, without the obstructionist Bush.

All told, this is called fishing for evidence when none exists. It's also called greenwashing, and it tells us that the bar has dropped inexcusably low for the president on the climate change issue, for at least one newspaper.

• ‹ previous
• up
• next ›