Author Archives: Kit Stolz

What We Have Here is a Failure to Imagine

From the preface of a book published this week by science writer Eugene Linden, called Winds of Change: In the late l970’s, climate specialists first started worrying about the possibility [of climate change]…but with the Iranian hostage crisis and stagflation dominating public concerns, the warning got little notice. The possibility that humans might be alteringContinue reading “What We Have Here is a Failure to Imagine”

Bush Administration Stumbles Over Science…Again

This week the Bush administration called for hiring tens of thousands of science and math teachers for advanced placement classes, and also for new tax cuts and incentives for research and development in science and technology. Why? Because business executives said it was important. At Prometheus, Roger Pielke, Jr., runs down the list of corporateContinue reading “Bush Administration Stumbles Over Science…Again”

Official NASA Webpage Misleading

From the crucial RealClimate site, here’s a well-written post that puts the finger on what is wrong with the NASA website page discussing last year’s climate, the warmest in history. Not only does it strangely avoid discussing what might cause such warming, but then it actually goes on to make a weak attempt to mislead.Continue reading “Official NASA Webpage Misleading”

We Interrupt This Blog for Jill Carroll

A wonderful writer and distant friend named Gayle Brandeis passes on an idea on how we can reach out to kidnapped reporter Jill Carroll: Hi.  A few of us at readerville.com are initiating a gesture of support for Jill Carroll.  We don’t harbor any illusions that by doing this we will effect her release….but weContinue reading “We Interrupt This Blog for Jill Carroll”

Speaking of Connecting the Dots…

Last night in his State of the Union address, President Bush claimed that warrantless eavesdropping was necessary in order to "connect the dots" and prevent terrorist attacks. This claim has already been challenged by the LA Times, among others, but (irony alert!) yesterday a climatologist used the same concept to explain why the administration wantsContinue reading “Speaking of Connecting the Dots…”

Poll: Will President Bush Mention Global Warming in the State of the Union Address?

Back in the fall of 2000, while running for President against an environmentalist, George Bush’s campaign promised to establish mandatory reductions on power plant emissions of greenhouse gasses, including carbon dioxide, which contribute to global warming.

In 2001, over the strenuous objections of EPA director Christine Whitman and Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, and under pressure from the coal industry, the plan was sabotaged, probably by Dick Cheney (as documented in O’Neill’s tell-all book).

Nonetheless, high energy prices and alarming indications that global warming is pushing the planet’s climate to a perilous "tipping point" have spurred many Bush supporters and moderates to call on the President to act now to change our energy policy and reduce carbon emissions.

Thomas Friedman, whose NYTimes column is said to be taken seriously within the administration, on Friday called on Bush to announce a new energy policy in tonight’s State of the Union Address. He wrote (behind a firewall) a mock speech for Bush that began with a historic challenge:

President Kennedy was
worried about the threat that communism posed to our way of life. I am here to
tell you that if we don’t move away from our dependence on oil and shift to
renewable fuels, it will change our way of life for the worse — and soon —
much, much more than communism ever could have. Making this transition is the
calling of our era.

    

Why? First, we are in a war with a violent strain of Middle East Islam that
is indirectly financed by our consumption of oil. Second, with millions of
Indians and Chinese buying cars and homes as they join the great global middle
class, we must quickly move away from burning fossil fuels or we’re going to
create enough global warming to melt the North Pole. Because of that, green
cars, homes, offices, appliances, designs and renewable energies will be the
biggest growth industry of the 21st century. If we don’t dominate that industry,
China, India, Japan or Europe surely will.

Friedman added a threat: If Bush fails to act on the issue, "you can stick a fork in this administration."

Irwin Seltzer, a conservative economist who writes an insightful column for the "Weekly Standard," and who has advocated a tax on carbon, reveals that the administration is being lobbied (believe it or don’t) by an insider group that wants a tax on gasoline:

A third group of policy makers, which includes the former president of Resources for the Future, (and now dean of the Eller College of Management at the University of Arizona), the widely respected Paul Portney, wants the president to announce that "the gas tax will be going up steadily for the foreseeable future to stimulate investment in all kinds of technologies without anointing any particular ones." The proceeds can be used to lower the tax on wages. The president may buy into a version of that proposal, asking Congress to set a tax on oil imports that cuts in only if crude oil prices fall below $35 per barrel.

Bush himself indicated that he will talk about changes in energy policy, in an interview with Bob Schieffer of CBS News.

"We have got to wean ourselves off hydrocarbons, oil. And the best way, in my judgment, to do it is to promote and actively advance new technologies."

Being naive and overly sincere (an occupational hazard among enviros) I read this and became a little excited. After all, polls consistently say that the public believes global warming is real and a threat; according to a poll taken last July, 73% of Americans believe that this country should join the Kyoto Protocol, and according to an ABC News poll published this weekend, over one-quarter of the public believes that global warming is the most serious issue facing this country today.

So I conducted a little poll of my own. Having minimal resources, it’s just one question long, and I sent it to a few dozen people I know have an interest in the issue (or at least, an interest in politics). Not everyone replied, of course, but the results are still interesting….and entertaining, actually. Lotta smart people in this world. Below the virtual fold are the responses to the question:

In his upcoming State of the Union address, will President Bush mention global warming in any way, shape, or form?