It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EPA heads blame Bush for global warming

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I thought you might find this interesting...

news.yahoo.com...




posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Thats a very misleading headline. And straight from the AP too.




five Republicans and one Democrat — accused the Bush administration Wednesday of neglecting global warming and other environmental problems.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
ya know, I've never really done this before, but I think I want to point a small error out to you...hope you don't mind. your title says the the EPA is blaming bush for global warming, like, umm...hey, if he changed his actions, it would all go away or something. this isn't actually true. what the EPA heads seem to be saying, and I believe it to be true, is bush is suffering from a severe case of selective hearing and if you aren't saying what he wants to hear, well, he choses not to hear you. and he doesn't want to hear how global warming is a reality and needs to be dealt with now. and that well, many of his policies seem to be dealing with it in the opposite way than they should be!! from his outsourcing is good for our economy so let's ship more of our industries to countries with little or no environmental policies such as china to his degrading our environmental policies here in the states because it's good for our economy....

all I can say is I hope the ones reaping the benefits from this great economy are terraforming mars for them to settle on, since life here on this planet might get a little rough....and again, what has he done to FEMA, the one that will be in charge of handling all of these global warming disasters?

Bush is being Bush, like any good ostrich, his head buried in the sand, oblivious of any danger, and therefore unwilling to take any action to avoid the danger.

but you can't really blame him for global warming, can you? I mean with every factory that moves to china, that's one less polluter here in the states, right?? and well, who cares if they get away with throwing twice as much crap into the air over there, that's china, it's there problem to deal with, not ours....



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FernandoPoo
Thats a very misleading headline. And straight from the AP too.


The words 'misleading' and 'AP' are redundancies.
It is sad to see a once good news service degenerate into the cesspool of yellow journalism. Like so many others, I no longer consider the AP a source of reliable and accurate information.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
NASA satellite data shows that almost all of the pollution problems come from developing countries that are exempt from the rules meant to clean up the air. If the USA were to cease all emissions, it would make very little difference to global warming.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZPE StarPilot
NASA satellite data shows that almost all of the pollution problems come from developing countries that are exempt from the rules meant to clean up the air. If the USA were to cease all emissions, it would make very little difference to global warming.


ummmm....but what effect, I wonder would making it less attractive for our businesses to fly over to these countries, where there is little or no environmental regulation. or to make the product sold to the american consumer that are being produced by these big pollluters less attractive?

one thing, I believe is pretty certain, the third world peasants are throwing all this crap into the air, it's the developing business section of the country...the manufacturers....and well, it is us, the good ole USA that are the biggest consumers of them. maybe we need to consume less???



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   
The USA possesses 4% of the world's population, but emits 25% of manmade CO2 production. It's vast. It's also very very worrying. There are enough straws in the wind just now (CO2 levels at their highest levels for 650,000 years, methane levels also very high, initial signs of a weakening in the Gulf Stream) to show that not only is global warming a reality, but that we don't know where the tipping point is, beyond which it's irreversible. Insurance and reinsurance companies are getting worried about this stuff, and that in itself is significant.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I think the point is that developing nations are not going to clean up their act, to their detriment of their economies, when they see the world's wealthiest nations doing nothing....

If we want China and India to develop emission free societies, then we must lead the way.

btw it was recently estimated that by 2050 increases in commercial air traffic in the UK would mean that to maintain current levels of carbon emissions, all other sources would have to drop to zero..... Most of that increase in air traffic is due to folk flying abroad on holidays. I haven't flown since 1984



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkmind
The USA possesses 4% of the world's population, but emits 25% of manmade CO2 production....


and the U.S. produces over 30% of the world's GDP. So in terms of CO2 per unit of economic production the U.S. is more efficient than the rest of the world.

If the rest of the world was as economically efficient as the U.S. global CO2 levels would decrease.


E_T

posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave_54
and the U.S. produces over 30% of the world's GDP. So in terms of CO2 per unit of economic production the U.S. is more efficient than the rest of the world.
Now that tells nothing about real production.
Where does it say that it all comes from real production, not from big corporations with workers in developing countries working on slave salary?
What should count is amount of produced goods, not some imaginary unit.
And some East Asia's countries produce huge amount of products for western consumers, if emissions from production of those are put to where they belong situation is entirely other.

And just a question, do really always believe people who lie all the time?
Because the most sacred article of faith those economist tout, continuous/eternal growth, is a pure 100% lie. When resources are limited such thing is impossible.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I'm saying that were alot of those countries developing say 50-100 years ago. Because throughout so many years the U.S. has had emmisions while the other countries probably had less than 1% of all those emmisions that now include many other countries.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join