America's Current Environmental Record, and Global Climate Change

"I think this administration is not a conservative administration. I think it’s a radical administration. It represents a radical rollback of environmental policy going back to a period many, many years ago. It’s backward."

Of course, this could just be his opinion. But is it? Environmental groups have generally given the Bush Administration the worst environmental rating of any U.S. presidency in history. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

This record is reasonably consistent with the approach to global climate change, as well. The current administration's stated policy:

"Addressing global climate change will require a sustained effort, over many generations. My approach recognizes that sustained economic growth is the solution, not the problem – because a nation that grows its economy is a nation that can afford investments in efficiency, new technologies, and a cleaner environment."

This approach at first glance sounds sensible, but on closer inspection is counter productive. It implies that we must "grow first," as if we haven't grown sufficiently for the past 100 years, so that we can "afford" sensibly addressing increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. It also implicitly and erroneously suggests that those investments in "efficiency, [and] new technologies" somehow don't contribute to Gross Domestic Product, unlike other improvements in efficiencies and technologies. It also manipulates the issue by suggesting that greenhouse gas accumulation has to be a byproduct of economic growth, when, in fact, that is only the case if we choose it to be. And it is tautological: On the one hand, implying (as is the constant argument against action) that addressing this issue impedes growth, and on the other hand stating that growth is the solution. Thus, implicitly, we haven't taken action because taking action hinders us from what we need -- growth -- to take action. And, by implying that "investments in efficiency [and] new technologies [for] a cleaner environment" impede, rather than help create "growth," that we haven't grown enough over the past several decades to "afford" this.

The administration's approach, as a result, has largely been to "study" the issue (and, more recently, to spend even more on committees and more study, and a little bit on subsidies). This also sounds great, but is not as relevant as it might first appear: It is fairly basic, and long established science, that the greenhouse effect makes life on earth possible. Atmospheric heat is one of the most basic components of weather, and climate. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, are necessary to trap some heat and keep almost all of it not trapped in the ground, from radiating back into space. But we have taken carbon, buried in the earth over a period of millions of years, and rapidly released it into the atmosphere though the burning of fossil fuels. This, combined with deforestation (which through the respiratory cycle of plants act as carbon sinks) has dramatically increased the concentration of these greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, and continues to do so.

It is unambiguous that such changes would have some effect on climate, since these gases trap the heat that makes life possible, and heat drives climate. As to what changes exactly, it is difficult for science to pinpoint given the complexity of even short term weather predictability. But the main conclusion, apparent for some time, is basic; we are conducting an enormous global experiment. Our best climatological predictions, also well known for some time, suggest some overall warming, and perhaps increased weather volatility. In fact, whether by random correlation, or causation, we have generally observed exactly such a response. Scientific estimates, regarding whether the effects we are seeing are a result of our activities, or a somewhat bizarre coincidence, put the odds at somewhere between 90 and 99% that the generally predicted effects that we are observing are directly correlated with increased greenhouse gas concentrations. But the main point, again, is that it is clear that since heat drives climate, and that we are radically altering the heat trapping chemical composition of our atmosphere, there is going to be some effect, predictable or not.

Despite almost constant and well polished rhetoric, the current administration has resisted efforts to do much more than "study" the issue. There are also claims that open debate on the matter have been stifled, as the administration, in a bit of a first for a free open democracy, allegedly has sought to control what government climate change information is shared. Such an approach would not be inconsistent with a regime that has sought to increase government secrecy, and more tightly control government information from the public.

Here's an April 18 piece where the Washington Post's Richard Cohen writes gloomily about the Global Climate Change issue (and also appears to (unintentionally?) tease Al Gore for having "invented the Internet" (a metaphor for the characterization that lost Gore the 2000 election). Overly gloomy or not, Cohen raises a legitimate issue. A satirical letter, implicitly asking Cohen, a frequent critic of the current administration's policies, why the effective case has not been made.

More climate change and administration info here, here. The more pessimistic of the predictions. Tying action to Clinton, or another excuse?