The War on Global Warming
The US government likes to declare war on issues in which there are no clear enemies, while physically fighting undeclared wars against foreign people. President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. President Richard Nixon declared war on cancer and recreational drugs. Will George W. Bush declare war on climate change?
Tim Hurst wrote, “I would argue that the only opportunity the current president has to leave a positive and lasting legacy is to take ownership of the climate change and global warming issue” in response to rumors that Bush supports a new climate proposal. Could this be Bush’s declaration of war on climate change? I hope not, as the United States has failed to previously win a war on cancer, poverty, or drugs, and these wars have gone on for decades. We don’t have decades to solve the problem of climate change; we must do it now. Of course, when Bush is involved, I have to be skeptical of his true intentions, especially when the Associate Press reports the Bush administration is motivated to avoid a “train wreck” of climate change regulations. I suspect the Bush climate policy would be a watered down version of these other regulations, besides the White House may already be retreating on the issue.
We don’t need to declare war on global warming; we need to take action. Action will require governmental regulation that is effective and not impotent. Water-downed policies created in an election year will not solve the problem and place the United States in a position of world leader on climate change. Action should be taken not for political reasons; actions should be taken to preserve our climate.
Image credit: Sierra Club
Related posts:
- Could Action on Climate Really Be Bush Legacy?
- 350 Parts Per Million: It’s the Magic Number!
- Bush Administration Just Says ‘No’ to Science
- Bush Continues to Erode Own Scientific Integrity
Nice post. I also like the Rosie-the-Riveter 2.0 poster from Sierra Club you used.
I specifically avoided discussing what climate change regulation should look like, since I am not a scientist. The government needs to listen to the scientists.
IF President Bush had unveiled his goals for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at the beginning of his administration instead of in its waning months, he might have actually played a role in linking the United States to global efforts to curb climate change. But the proposals he made yesterday, which in 2001 could have been a starting point for negotiations with advocates of stronger action in Congress, are now too belated and too weak to be more than a historical footnote. All three remaining presidential candidates are committed to much more stringent, mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide.