Blues for Bush
It's a question I was going to ask in a week or so as the man prepares to leave office.
But following the announcement of a major US move on protecting coral reefs and special areas of seafloor in the Pacific, it seems right to ask it now: what is the second President Bush's environmental legacy?
Reaction to this week's announcement ranged from the Pew Environment Group's applause for Mr Bush's "historical action" to the Center for Biological Diversity's contention that in the end it meant nothing without cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
In recent weeks, the president's administration has been under fire for denying endangered species protection to the ribbon seal (an echo of its earlier stance on the polar bear), over plans that would apparently allow developers to build in forests and permit surface mining close to mountain streams - and for the "one-minute-to-midnight" nature of this rule making.
For some observers such as the Huffington Post's Lincoln Mitchell, the administration's record on greenhouse gas emissions means that President Bush will be remembered for "a studied, and malignant, neglect of major issues such as climate change".
But for some others, including the Guardian newspaper, the Pacific marine measures are enough to "recast his environmental record".
A few other issues that bear on the legacy question might, depending on your point of view, include:
- the impact of US overseas aid policies regarding condom use on population growth
- apparent contradictions between the US accepting scientific accounts of man-made climate change while withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol; yet, for all that, seeing little growth in greenhouse gas emissions [pdf link] during Mr Bush's time in office
- US leadership of an initiative that could bridge the divide between pro- and anti-whaling nations, possibly involving a partial lifting of the global hunting moratorium, but possibly also reducing the number of whales killed each year
- fisheries policies that are among the world's most progressive
- strengthening of domestic clean air legislation
- support for genetically modified foods
- support for nuclear power
So what do you think?
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~07~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Bush's legacy? - the facts speak for themselves:
Clinton and Gore years of the late 20th century saw the greatest increase in global warming.
The Bush and Cheney years of the early 21st century have seen global temperatures level and recently decline.
I'm not a Bush support but his policies have have a fine record in this respect that Obama needs to understand and get to grips with. i.e. Leave well alone.
Complain about this comment
Bush's legacy or the legacy of the period that Bush was occupying the White House?
Although some of the items on the list can be credited to Mr Bush, at least in part, much of it has more to do with the attitudes and policies of individual departments such as the EPA and states (e.g. fisheries policy, greenhouse gas emissions reductions) which exhibit a fiercely independent streak and longer term view in the US.
As for the new marine reserves... probably no oil there then.. but most welcome nevertheless.
Complain about this comment
First.
Polar Bears are not endangered
Second.
How did the coral atolls decimated by the Tsunami recover so quickly? Why do Great Barrier Reef resident divers say the reefs have never looked better?
Third.
The world's weather has nothing to do with mankind's CO2 production. If CO2 is rising why is the world cooling? And why millions of tears ago when there was 20 times more CO2 around was it colder than it is at the moment?
Fourth
The Hansens, Manns, Monbiots of this world
are todays equivalent of Flat Earthers.
Complain about this comment
Roger, the PDF link doesn`t appear to be working.
Bush`s marine protection measure has been in the legislative pipeline for the past few years and should be applauded.
Post 4. `And why millions of years ago when there was 20 times more CO2 around was it colder than it is at the moment?`
Could you be more specific? Can you name the epoch or period (e.g. Paleocene, Jurassic etc) you are referring to or an approx. number `for million of years ago`, e.g. 65? 200?.
Or are you referring to the more recent ice ages?
Complain about this comment
pdf link fixed now - apologies. And it's Richard, by the way - Roger Black was the handsome one who won Olympic medals at 400 metres.
Complain about this comment
easily confused then ;)
Complain about this comment
#4 globalclaptrap,
re; your point 3.
1) The solar wind is currently on a 50 minimum >20% less than the last minimum 10 years ago and measurements from Ulysses Satellite show it is 13% cooler than normal. Less heat from the sun
2) There is more cloud around (most likely due to air travel, the few days after 9/11 when air travel was stopped were the sunniest for many years). Less insolation of the earths surface.
3) The period where there was 20x CO2 of today followed the massive volcanic activity(linked to the near global extinctions) while the earth went through decades of global winter prior to the great ice age.
4) Global warming is a misnomer, it's actually man made climate change. Some areas eg. UK will get a lot colder once the gulf stream slows to a complete halt due to the demise of the deep ocean pump following the polar melt
Complain about this comment
#6. My apologies Richard. Comes of lurching straight from bed to PC, via kettle, for my early morning news fix.
#4. I think the period you meant was the Cambrian period that began around 542 mya. It has been estimated that CO2 was then at 4500 ppm (16 times pre-industrial level) and Earth`s mean surface temperature over this periods duration was 7 degrees C above modern levels.
Prior to this was the Varangian glaciation, also known as Snowball Earth, which is associated with very low levels of greenhouse gasses.
The rise in their levels and the resulting warming of Earth`s climate is credited to the start of long period of widespread volcanic eruptions that emitted large amounts of CO2.
The Cambrian is associated with the rapid appearance of many different types of species of life in the fossil record. These events were recently featured in two TV documentary series.
There has never been a period of high CO2 levels and low temperatures.
The relationship between greenhouse gas concentrations and temperature is well established throughout Earth`s history.
Complain about this comment
No problem at all, jayfurneaux. CuckooToo, would that you were right - unfortunately the only time I'm likely to win a race these days is if it takes place around an all-you-can-eat buffet.
pandatank, I fear you might be conflating the solar energy arriving at the Earth with the strength of the solar wind - not the same thing at all. As this article spells out, the variability of solar energy is typically about 0.1% across a solar cycle, and indeed between solar cycles. Also, the situation around clouds (and therefore, possibly, insolation) following 9/11 is not as clear as you suggest. Early suggestions of an impact on cloudiness came from David Travis's 2002 paper in Nature[pdf link]. But, note he was actually positing an effect on the daily temperature range rather than on temperature itself. Subsequent research has challenged his finding.
Complain about this comment
I had a note to return to this blog to read a link from one of the comments to an article in the Huffington Post.
Does anybody know where it's gone?
Complain about this comment
"The world's weather has nothing to do with mankind's CO2 production."
Hmm, someone who does understand the difference between climate and weather. Is Sarah Palin on this thread?
Complain about this comment
Firstly can we not avoid this descending into yet another climate change sceptic v believer battle? This is not the time nor the place.
Whilst the marine conservation measures should be applauded; in environmental terms, Bush will be remembered as the president who refused to sign Kyoto. Whatever the flaws of Kyoto, without doubt serious and numerous, surely it - at least - was a key step in showing a united will to tackle the GHG problem. Rather like Betamax and VHS, if you'll excuse the ridiculous analogy, an imperfect but united way forward is surely better than having factions pulling in different directions, as that simply hinders progress. Bush refused to sign Kyoto on the basis that it would damage the US economy. The US economy is in pieces. Whilst the two are not linked, it's hard not to smirk at that fact.
Complain about this comment
@exiled-tyke
It would be great to stop this sceptic v believer battle.
I think one of the best ways to resolve this Hockey Stick debate would be to lock Michael Mann and Steve McIntyre in a room and not let them out until they both agree what shape the stick takes.
(2 bladed hockey stick is my best bet based on what I understand)
Complain about this comment
"The world's weather has nothing to do with mankind's CO2 production."
Hmm, someone who does understand the difference between climate and weather. Is Sarah Palin on this thread?
Its not just Sarah Palin: How many people blamed Hurricane Katrina (a couple of days of weather) on Global warming? Al Gore for starters......
Complain about this comment
#13 "Whilst the marine conservation measures should be applauded; in environmental terms, Bush will be remembered as the president who refused to sign Kyoto"
He will indeed and its utterly unfair. Clinton & Gore were in power when Kyoto was on the table, not Bush. The sentate rejected the treaty 97 to 0. NOT ONE SINGLE DEMOCRATIC SENATOR WOULD SIGN IT. Bush has no legal power to sign the treaty without ratification and even he wasn't dumb enough to attempt to get it ratified as it would have again been rejected.
In any case virtually no nation that did sign it is managing to achieve its goals and enormous polluters like China and India and Australia (the most polluting nation on earth by population) didn't sign it either so its frankly a waste of good trees.
Complain about this comment
the kyoto protocol
the kyoto accords were initiated end of 1997
On july 25th1997the american senate signed "resolution 98" In it was stipulated that the USA would sign the protocol under 2 conditions. first, not only the industralized countries but all countries should participate, and 2nd the american economy should not suffer dispropotionate damage as a consequence. The count was unanimous 95 for 0 against. That was the reason Clinton decided not to ratify.
As the decision of the senate is still valid (and not limited to the kyoto protocol but all subsequent treaties in that respect) there was no reason why Bush should have done that after all. Apart from that, there is no advantage in joining. the reasoning behind it is wrong. It has not been proved scientifically that Co2 is in anyway responsible for Global warming. Being a trace gas we can't live without it, and trying to remove it haphazzardly is dangerous to future generations. The distribution as proposed is liable to fraud and cannot be controlled properly. It is one of his great achievements he has withstood world opinion during his term in office.
Complain about this comment
For me he is a hero that has liberated Afghanistan and Iraq and making these countries progressing into democracy and liberty to woman going to school for a better education and living. Liberation in speech and in trading, free to sell and free to buy.
Helping the drug farmer to convert to a legal crop.
I hope these countries will be example to the Muslim country to follow.
He should be honored with the highest rank of star of the State (Purple Heart?)as well as Nobel Prize.
Complain about this comment
Found that article I mentioned from the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html
Interesting that this site would publish such an article. Perhaps times are a changing.
Comments section also good reading.
Complain about this comment
The world changes because it can and does and as always done so, if it did not we would all be dealing with primaeval swamps as for man kind killing the plant well mankind kills each other but because the few rich and powerful want more and to not have their lives changed in anyway for them and their off spring and they want power of the few over the many . Mankind takes years to change and loves to fight while doing this and the world just changes and deals with mankind by getting ride of them. many acts of nature man has no say over thank God now the rulers of the earth want everyone else to live in fear and pay them to fly all over the place having Jolly Boys outings and taking tripe. The world rules and what it wants it does it is a living entity after all. Humans have not got a clue but are being conned.
Complain about this comment
The worst you can say about Bush is that he wasn't a hypocrite like European leaders who gave speaches about the dangers of "Global Warming" and set goals in for the far future but in truth didn't really do anything.
Complain about this comment
I sum up Bush's presidency as "Brady Bunch 101".
Every episode of that '70s TV show had the same theme:
"Life is about doing the right thing, even when it doesn't make you popular."
He basically got all the major decisions right, especially on environmental issues.
I have no regrets voting for him in both '00 and '04. Especially when compared to the alternatives.
Complain about this comment
The former President's environment legacy is written in his corporate policies: if it makes money, do it. One of the first things Bush said after taking office was that he is for big business, and that's all he really believes in. He said it with a smirk, and in a tone of voice that implied the correspondent must be daft to think there might be anything else to consider. I believe we should take Bush at his word: what concerns big business, concerned him and what didn't was a non-issue. So the real question is what is big business's track record on issues of environment, ecology, and safe, honest business practices... Oh wait!!!... Aren't we seeing their legacy right now on Wall Street? Clearly honesty, ethics, and deep contemplation of the consequences of their actions have always been high on their list of priorities. Silly of me!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS