McBush Blows Hot Air On Global Warming

This Reuters story tells us…

ACCRA (Reuters) - Morality should be a spur for stronger action to fight climate change, which threatens food and water supplies for the poorest in Africa, a group of Christian activists said on Saturday during U.N. climate talks.

"We hear about climate change as a political issue, an environmental issue and an economic issue. We want to press the point that this is a moral issue," said Marcia Owens, a minister in the Florida branch of the African Methodist Episcopal Church.

She and a group of Christian activists told Reuters they were lobbying delegates at the August 21-27 U.N. talks in Ghana to work out a strong new treaty, due for completion by the end of 2009, to slow global warming.

This is, to me, the proper context for framing this issue, for it truly is a matter of faith as far as your humble narrator is concerned (and the Catholic Church has spoken out also here, though not lately as nearly as I can determine from my “Googling”).

And with this in mind, I decided to review the positions of the two presidential candidates on the matter (any sense in using the “all-but-named” prefix at this point?).

John W. McBush here tells us that he would work towards the following goals…

Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets And Timetables

2012: Return Emissions To 2005 Levels (18 Percent Above 1990 Levels)

2020: Return Emissions To 1990 Levels (15 Percent Below 2005 Levels)

2030: 22 Percent Below 1990 Levels (34 Percent Below 2005 Levels)

2050: 60 Percent Below 1990 Levels (66 Percent Below 2005 Levels)

Well, that’s nice. However, the problem is that, according to this link…

Observations have also shown that the area of Arctic sea ice cover has already decreased by about 10% over the past 30 years and could diminish by another 10-20%. Climate change researchers have found evidence of a global warming induced slowdown of the Gulf stream – the ocean current that keeps Europe from freezing. Such a slowdown is not only a warning that a much cooler climate for Europe could already be on its way; it also spells disaster for the Arctic. The ice cap could melt as early as 2020, leading to extinction of Arctic wildlife such as the polar bear.

So we could be reducing our emissions by targets from 2030 to 2050, but it won’t matter because of the impact on our climate and, subsequently, the lives of all of us (to say nothing of cataclysmic changes in weather patters for most of the world, impoverishing nations and creating perhaps the greatest refugee crisis the earth has ever seen).

And by the way, concerning McBush’s other votes on climate change, David Roberts of The Nation tells us here…

On June 21, 2007, the Senate voted on the Baucus amendment to the energy bill, which would have removed some oil company subsidies in order to fund renewable energy. The amendment failed to pass. Where was McCain? He didn't vote.

On the same day, the Senate held a cloture vote to overcome the standard Republican veto threat and pass the energy bill. The vote succeeded. Where was McCain? He didn't vote.

On Dec. 7, the Senate held another cloture vote to overcome the standard Republican veto threat on the energy bill, which had become substantially bolder after being aligned with the House version. The vote failed. Where was McCain? He didn't vote.

On Dec. 13, 2007, the Senate held another cloture vote to overcome the standard Republican veto threat and pass the energy bill, which had the Renewable Portfolio Standard stripped out of it but retained a measure that would shift oil company subsidies to renewables. The vote failed -- by one vote, 59-40. Where was McCain? He didn't vote -- the only Senator not to do so.

On Feb. 6, 2008, the Senate held another cloture vote to overcome the standard Republican veto threat and pass a stimulus bill containing a number of green energy incentives. The cloture motion failed, by one vote. Where was McCain? He didn't vote -- again, the only Senator not to do so.

(I’m sure I have this in another post somewhere, but it bears repeating.)

And Barack Obama? Like McBush, he favors a cap-and-trade program (also working towards a percentage reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050), but according to here…

Obama will re-engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) -- the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem. He will also create a Global Energy Forum of the world’s largest emitters to focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues.

And how nice it would be to return to working with a community of nations again on something besides war and armaments, huh?

With Obama, I believe we have a better shot of working towards curbing emissions and generating new “clean” industries in the bargain (it will be a tough road, but it’s one we must travel for the sake of the planet). We can also help to achieve a measure of redemption on the world stage as we do so.

But with McBush, when it comes to the future of the earth, we haven’t got a prayer.