Ex-EPA chiefs blame Bush for global warming

[scottyz]

WASHINGTON - Six former heads of the
Environmental Protection Agency — five Republicans and one Democrat — accused the Bush administration Wednesday of neglecting global warming and other environmental problems.

"I don't think there's a commitment in this administration," said Bill Ruckelshaus, who was EPA's first administrator when the agency opened its doors in 1970 under President Nixon and headed it again under President Reagan in the 1980s.

Russell Train, who succeeded Ruckelshaus in the Nixon and Ford administrations, said slowing the growth of "greenhouse" gases isn't enough.

"We need leadership, and I don't think we're getting it," he said at an EPA-sponsored symposium centered around the agency's 35th anniversary. "To sit back and just push it away and say we'll deal with it sometime down the road is dishonest to the people and self-destructive."

All of the former administrators raised their hands when EPA's current chief, Stephen Johnson, asked whether they believe global warming is a real problem, and again when he asked if humans bear significant blame.

Agency heads during five Republican administrations, including the current one, criticized the Bush White House for what they described as a failure of leadership.

His predecessors disagreed. Lee Thomas, Ruckelshaus's successor in the Reagan administration, said that "if the United States doesn't deal with those kinds of issues in a leadership role, they're not going to get dealt with. So I'm very concerned about this country and this agency."

Bill Reilly, the EPA administrator under the first President Bush, echoed that assessment.

"The time will come when we will address seriously the problem of climate change, and this is the agency that's best equipped to anticipate it," he said.

Christie Whitman, the first of three EPA administrators in the current Bush administration, said people obviously are having "an enormous impact" on the earth's warming.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060118/ap_on_go_ot/global_warming

I suppose the Bush apologists will write this off as more partisan bickering by those tree hugging liberal Republicans...

 

[KCConservative]

Your link says "accused the Bush administration Wednesday of neglecting global warming..." and your thread says Bush is to "blame" for global warming. So which is it? Did Bush cause global warming or has he neglected it?

I think you learned thread writing at the Danarhea School of Liberal Spinning.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Your link says "accused the Bush administration Wednesday of neglecting global warming..." and your thread says Bush is to "blame" for global warming. So which is it? Did Bush cause global warming or has he neglected it?

I think you learned thread writing at the Danarhea School of Liberal Spinning.

I agree with you. There is a big difference between ignoring a problem and causing it.

 

[Gitdog]

Your link says "accused the Bush administration Wednesday of neglecting global warming..." and your thread says Bush is to "blame" for global warming. So which is it? Did Bush cause global warming or has he neglected it?

I think you learned thread writing at the Danarhea School of Liberal Spinning.

I will concur.

 

[aps]

Your link says "accused the Bush administration Wednesday of neglecting global warming..." and your thread says Bush is to "blame" for global warming. So which is it? Did Bush cause global warming or has he neglected it?

I agree with this, but I notice that you, KC, ignore the accusation that these people have accused Bush of neglecting global warming. Are you going to refute that allegation?

This Bush is the WORST president when it comes to environmental issues. I see this first hand in my husband's work, who works for the Dept. of Justice doing environmental enforcement. His dept. represents agencies like EPA in federal court. The cases my husband was working on (he has since stopped because of frustration due to the Bush adminstration underming their cases) dealt with violations of the Clean Air Act.

The issue with global warming is that the Bushies just refuse to accept that it exists. What they have done is essentially have EPA and other agencies change words so that reports on global warming are minimized. It's pathetic. Unfortunately, most Americans don't educate themselves on environmental issues, or don't even care about the environment.

http://webexhibits.org/bush/5.html

 

[Binary_Digit]

Oh but didn't you hear? Global warming is a farce! Everyone with a PhD in geology is clueless. [/sarcasm]

 

[KCConservative]

I agree with this, but I notice that you, KC, ignore the accusation that these people have accused Bush of neglecting global warming. Are you going to refute that allegation?

No, were you wanting me to? I commented on the disingenuous thread title, that's all. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go chip the ice from my driveway.

 

[aps]

No, were you wanting me to? I commented on the disingenuous thread title, that's all. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go chip the ice from my driveway.

Only if you want to, Mr. Ice Chipper.

 

[KCConservative]

Only if you want to, Mr. Ice Chipper.

Well, there's a lot of ice. Darn global warming.

 

[Gill]

My first comment on this thread is that the existence of global warming is disputed by many knowledgable climatologists. If ground level temperatures are used, some warming is indicated, but if satellite and balloon measurements are used, very little if any warming is noted. Has anyone ever heard of urban heat island affect? If you watch the weather on a TV station based in a large city, look at the temps in surrounding areas closely. In almost all cases they will be lower than those within the city.

My second comment is there is absolutely no way to prove that man has or can cause the climate to warm. We can't even make it rain in a limited area when we want it to. I think it is rather conceited to think we could alter the entire global climate.

My third comment is that temperatures have been rising and falling throughout the history of the world. At one time glaciers covered much of North America and Europe. At another time, the northern US was subtropical. What exactly would be so bad about global warming?? A thousand years from now, our descendent's may be growing oranges in Nebraska and coffee in Texas. Doesn't sound so bad to me.

 

[Binary_Digit]

My first comment on this thread is that the existence of global warming is disputed by many knowledgable climatologists.

If by "knowledgable" you mean "paid off by OPSEC" then I agree! There is almost no debate among experts about whether or not global warming happens. The main debate is how much it will effect everything.

My second comment is there is absolutely no way to prove that man has or can cause the climate to warm. We can't even make it rain in a limited area when we want it to. I think it is rather conceited to think we could alter the entire global climate.

I used to think the same thing until I took a college geology class. Laboratory experiments have replicated global warming on a small scale using carbon dioxide. A study was released over a year ago that discovered the planet is taking on more energy from the sun than is radiating back into space, it was described as the "smoking gun" that humans are affecting the environment. I also learned how important our atmosphere is for sustaining life. Oh, the planet will be fine, but the real question is what will happen to life? There is a fungus growing in South America, attributed to global warming, that may provide a hint to this answer. It has caused at least 2 speces of frogs to go extinct. :shock:

My third comment is that temperatures have been rising and falling throughout the history of the world. At one time glaciers covered much of North America and Europe. At another time, the northern US was subtropical. What exactly would be so bad about global warming?? A thousand years from now, our descendent's may be growing oranges in Nebraska and coffee in Texas. Doesn't sound so bad to me.

Temperature fluxuations are pretty well known and documented, but the average temperature rate of change over the last 75 years is the highest ever recorded.