Interviewing Energy secretary, Blitzer failed to explain that Bush policy could allow emissions increase
On the February 22 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer allowed Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to tout President Bush's environmental record by stating that "this president has put us on a path of reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of our economy by 18 percent" without explaining that reducing "greenhouse gas intensity" is not the same as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and that a reduction in intensity could occur even as greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.
Bush announced a plan to "Reduce the Greenhouse Gas Intensity of the U.S. Economy by 18 Percent in the Next Ten Years" in February 2002. According to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, greenhouse gas intensity is "the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) to economic output expressed in gross domestic product (GDP)." The Pew Center notes that, while using this ratio "minimizes economic impact by allowing emissions to rise or fall with economic output," it also "provides no assurance that a given level of environmental protection will be achieved since the degree of environmental protection is measured in relation to GDP." By the Pew Center's calculations, an 18-percent reduction in emissions intensity by 2012 will "allow actual emissions to increase 12 percent" in that time.
Additionally, Blitzer failed to challenge Bodman's claim that global warming has been proven "in large measure because of investments this president has made." In testimony before the Government Oversight and Government Reform Committee on January 30, Drew T. Shindell, a researcher at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, asserted that a press release he had written on global warming had been "delayed, altered and watered down" and that he had been told "releases were being delayed because two political appointees and the White House are now reviewing all climate related press releases." Shindell further complained of "a series of actions that attempted to suppress communication of climate science to the public" and added:
Suppression of results demonstrating ever-increasing scientific knowledge of the principles underlying global warming, of the data demonstrating its rapidity and its consequences, and exaggeration of the remaining scientific uncertainties, certainly gave the appearance that scientific evidence that could undermine a rationale for inaction on climate change was being targeted.
Blitzer did not ask Bodman about Shindell's testimony.
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the February 22 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: What do you say to Senator [John] McCain [AZ], a Republican presidential candidate?
BODMAN: I would say this to Senator McCain -- that, with all due respect, I disagree with him. I think that this president has put us on a path of reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of our economy by 18 percent between -- I think when we started in 2002, for 10 years, up to 2012. We're on that path. We are, I think, making excellent progress on that.
This has been something this president has taken very seriously, since back in the year 2001. I think he was correct to reject the Kyoto agreement because it didn't include developing nations, particularly China and India. Those have to be a part of anything that we do.
BLITZER: Is there any doubt, any lingering doubt in the administration, in the Department of Energy, about global warming right now, because, as you know, some critics have suggested the science still has not been 100 percent proven?
BODMAN: Well, I think it's been proven to my satisfaction, for sure. And it's been proven in large measure because of investments that this president made. That's what's something that doesn't seem to get in the story.
BLITZER: So Al Gore's concern -- he's about, potentially, to win an Academy Award Sunday night for his Inconvenient Truth -- his documentary.
anything that bush does is only smoke and mirrors. make it look like he cares, when in fact the bottom line of the oil companies is his only interest.
Green house gases in a ratio to GDP?!?! What? What kind of *law* is that??? I can see the headlines in the coming year...'Economy in the dump, gases up/down...', 'Econmy roaring, gases up/down...' This country is screwing the world..and what's with Bodman's reasoning- 'the U.S. shouldn't comply with saving the earth because China and India are being dumb-dumbs'...great, so if there is not a 100% commpliance for an international law, no country should EVER do something right..
You have to start somewhere... As the most powerful nation on earth we have to set the example even if we know that it will take time to make other nations to fall in line. I understand the concerns that in some respects we may be giving othe nations some economic advantage in the process. However, we seem to take our eye off the ball whenever money is concerned. And yet while we resist giving up a nickel in some instances we'll waste hundreds of billions of dollars on other things such as the Iraq war. Intelligence, wisdom, fairness and balance... are we completely bereft of leadership with those qualities?
This administration is so dysfunctional that at this point I don't even expect reality-based pronouncements from any of its officials.
" Additionally, Blitzer failed to challenge Bodman's claim that global warming has been proven "in large measure because of investments this president has made." "
So what? Does it need to be challenged over and over again? Everyone KNOWS global warming is happening. The only controversial part is whether it is happening naturally or a manmade occurance. Does it matter either way?? The left is soo worried about missinformation relating to "if" global warming is occuring that they ignore "why" it's happening. The bigger picture to the left is that global warming effects children in future generations, and that is important. After all, the liberals keep flaunting just how important it is to save future generations. However, those hypocrits totally ignore the plight of the poor children in underdeveloped nations, NOW. Ignoring the dangers they face now. The left would rather toot their own horn with a "popular" subject than helping out on a deadly one. The left doesn't care about saving children, only about being in power. The left is so hypocritical. Thank God there are religious organizations out there that actually care about human lives NOW, not about natural occuring problems 5,000 years into the future.
Can We Count On Your Support?
The Bush administration is at odds with the National Governors Association over funding for Children’s Health Insurance Program which would provide health insurance to poor children in this country.
Have you contacted your Senator and Congressman to ask them to fight for the children and against the Bush administration?
Expecting 'someone else' to do the work for you, again? Why does Bush have to do everything for you? You can't do anything on your own?
Nice response.
I thought since reading your impassioned pleas concerning the effects of famine on the children in Africa in the thread on global warming that you might be willing to do something for the children in this country.
The program that I referred to is a bipartisan effort by the Republican and Democratic Governors to get the federal government to help pay the cost to provide insurance for those who can't afford it.
My mistake was in thinking that some things were important enough to put our differences aside and work for the common good.
So let me get this straight, PC: you are saying that Worrier should personally provide health insurance for children?
i doubt it. but it's a nice way to distract and start an argument.
It's an interesting and transparently desperate approach: liberals are hypocrites about global warming because there are children starving in Africa. It's also an absurd argument because it assumes that liberals are not helping starving children in Africa. I personally know ones who are.
and aren't liberals the ones who always get accused of "givin all our money away to all these furign guvments". since it came up, i give to a group whose focus is seeing that the crops that are left in the fields, unmarketable to chain stores, are picked and distributed to food pantries all over the country. it's not second harvest but something along those lines.
And just wahat are you doing besides displaying your arrogant ignorance?
Expecting god to do work for you again? Don't count on it.
K, a few things here...worrierking i followed this over from the Stossel posts...
1.) If you are a "Proud Christian", then you are a hypocrite. Blessed are the meek, remember that?
2.) Lobbying your gov't officials is THE PROCESS BY WHICH LEGISLATION HAPPENS you tool. Go take a civics class and get your head right.
3.) "trying to get someone else to do the work" You know what you are absolutely right. So, tomorrow at noon I will announce my canidacy for Presideny of the US, as well as my nomination to the SCOTUS, also my appointment to the Joint Cheif of Staff. All before my scriptwriting class and audio lab. Then I'll be in positions of importance to make those key decisions and "get the job done". You ass. So I guess the people in New Orleans shouldn't have expected any help. After all, they can do the job themselves right? All those people had to do was just swim to the Civic Center right?
"The left doesn't care about saving children, only about being in power."
Gee, what a stupendous Limbaughish leap of logic to reach that conclusion. Perhaps you haven't been follwing closely but until just recently the Republicans controlled Congress and we've had a Republican President for six years now. It appears to this observer that the party in power has been pre-occupied with helping oil companies, granting tax cuts to the wealthy and prosecuting an ill-advised war that has caused more problems than it could ever have possibly solved. Helping poor children or saving the environment has not appeared on the Republican radar screen as far as I can tell. But, yet, the opposition party is hypocritical and power hungry for not doing what exactly? I'm really not following you...
"Thank God there are religious organizations out there that actually care about human lives NOW, not about natural occuring problems 5,000 years into the future."
Yes, I sincerely commend religious groups for trying to help impoverished children now. Christians should help the poor as Jesus taught and true Christians should be expected to follow the examples left by Jesus. The problem I have, though, is when you interpose scientific opinions that differ with the consensus of the scientific community and an enormous supportive body of scentific evidence in order to take pot shots at the motivations of others. So, please stick to religion and defer the realm of science to the experts who deal with the scientific complexities of the natural world. It's arrogant and un-Christian in my observation to condemn other well-motivated people because you choose to ignore scientific consensus.
News flash for Proud Kristshun: You can be a real Christian, not judge others, give all your wealth to the poor, be humble, turn the other cheek, not throw stones, love everyone, not be an idiot (whoops that slipped in by mistake) AND, be a liberal, criticize your goverment, be a Democrat, work towards a sustainable society etc.
Proud xian, Pride is not a virtue, it is a vice. And your pride, or something is blinding you to the hard realities we experience today. Instead of twisting logic to try and paint liberals as being hypocritical, shut up and do something positive. You have liberals wrong, like most your animosity is misdirected. You people will say anything to avoid discussing the topic.
The Secretary said that we're "on a path of reducing" something.
Reducing what, EMISSIONS?
Nope, that isn't what he said we're "on a path of reducing"
He said we're "on a path of reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of our economy"
The "greenhouse gas intensity of our economy"...
...man, the extraordinary bend over backwards lengths these people will go, to avoid saying the word EMISSIONS.
...and I only just noticed, that the Secretary appears to have said 'economy', where most of us would have said environment, or atmosphere even.
Unless he misspoke.
"...man, the extraordinary bend over backwards lengths these people will go, to avoid saying the word EMISSIONS."
I don't know if you ever noticed or recall this, but for a long while in his presidency, Bush would not even say the words "global warming" publicly... choosing, rather, some benign euphamism. Then, when Bush finally acknowledged something called "global warming" when he was obliged to say the words the discomfort and awkwardness on his face were obvious... as though he was spitting out an unpleasant or inappropriate vulgarity in a polite setting. It was weird...
My belief is that the administration is populated with persons who, perhaps mostly because of their own backgrounds, have so zealously prioritized business interests over anything else, short of family and religion, that exists in the world that anything regulating or inhibiting the interests of business in making profits, regardless of the harm that the lack of such regulation or control may cause to the country or the wrold, is anathema to them. Or am I stating the obvious...?
I don't know how obvious it is that the present administration (and the RNC) serve no public interests whatsoever, but only their own private and financial interests...
I don't know how obvious that is, but it's true nonetheless.
And I'd disagree only a little with something you wrote, where you placed (correctly) these private and financial interests so high above any matter public, and then admitted also that they might hold family and religion in a near high regard...
Not true I say.
These people, their religion is as phony as a wolf in sheep's clothing...
...and their family are nothing but their present servants in the pursuit of wealth, who work overtime and without conscience on such amassing of fortune...
...so as to gain the greater on the deaths of their elders, and inherit the estate.
This is what I find troubling about the environmental movement. It wants to put environmental goals ahead of other goals that may well have a more significant impact on our country and its citizens. Do you care about how some of these environmental goals would impact people's lives right now?
This greenhouse gas emissions measure is obviously a measure of efficiency. To say that our intensity has improved is significant and an accomplishment. The odds of being able to see the economy continue to expand - something that will likely benefit all of us - with zero additional admissions is likely unrealistic right now or in the short term. However, to be able to grow the economy but emit less gas per unit of GDP is moving in the direction the environmentalists should want to be moving. To have a strict zero emissions increase would likely imply a very weak growth rate that could prompt economic recession. The impacts of an economic recession would have very real and likely negative impacts on many Americans today. In the short term, I find that far more troubling than the level of gas emissions.
I think it comes down to an issue of realism which I think is something that is often lacking with the environmental movement. Growth with zero emissions increase is highly unlikely at the current state of technology but we are apparently moving in that direction.
"an issue of realism". of course, you guys have spent fifteen years denying the problem, and now the talking point is we can't do anything about it without ruining the economy.
Sorry, but you cannot brush aside a point by labeling it a talking point. I have a decent understanding of the economy and can formulate my own thoughts, thank you.
That being said, what is the likelihood that this problem, if it is possible for man to "fix it," being able to be fixed in the short term and if so without significant economic risk. And, yes, economic risk is an important variable. If I was convinced that the planet was on the brink AND that man's action could make a change in that, I might have a different point of view on that. However, I am not willing to trash our economy based upon that.
Not willing to trash the economy but you're willing to trash everything else. Here's a thought genius, make green living economically beneficial. Killed two birds with one stone. It is really disgusting to me that some would cling to the money god so tightly they actually think the economy, the American worker and technology can't possibly adapt to the times.
I think you are dead on to be honest. If there is an economic incentive for environmental based products and services, they will grow like no amount of environmental preaching will do. This is another one of those issues I pile into unrealism of the environmentalists. Look at alternative fuels. There is a demand for vehicles and alternative fuel means now. The number of cars being sold is increasing, interest is increasing, investment in alternative is growing. The economy and society is moving in that direction. But there is an economic reality that it is not going to happen overnight. You seem to have some issue with money, but an awful lot of people until recently could not even think purchasing a hybrid or alternative fuel vehicle due to the cost. However, those costs are coming down. I find it very interesting to watch the confluence of global sociopolitical factors interact with technology give a significant push to the rapid growth of a blooming industry.
So you can complain about money all you want, but economic forces are doing more for eco-friendly products and services are getting more of a push now than they did because environmentalists were telling us what we should do. That has nothing to do with money worship - it is just dealing with reality of our society.
energy conservation is not only an economic issue, but as jimmy carter called it, a security issue. we should have been on a crash program to wean ourselves off oil and stop sending money to regimes who turn around and give it to terrorist groups. but the republicans and conservatives have fought and mocked conservation measures and alternate energy for decades.
Then if it is really a security issue, then why are we not drilling in ANWR or off the coasts of Florida or California? Don't play the security card. Yes, we are moving toward alternative fuels, but that is not going to make a significant dent for a while. Thus, if we really want to lessen our dependence on foreign oil IN THE INTERIM, then we should be exploiting all sources of American energy sources. Until that point, I do not buy just how seriously some take the security issue.
Again...1) it would take up to 10 years to get to the oil...2) the amount of oil- on the highest estimate givien- would put a 1% increase in our oil supply....and, lastly..3) there is NO guarentee that the oil companies would sell to the U.S.....they can ship where ever they want- and they usually do to get more profits...
i don't have a problem with limited drilling in anwr. but that is not our main problem. it's just more of the same dependence on oil. we could have been well on the way to "alternate" fuels if not for republican and conservative opposition. one of the first things reagan did was remove the solar panels carter put on the white house roof.
Speaking of ANWR...you should google BP/Exxon and oil spills and north slope....they are negligent in their care of the pipe lines. When a spill occurs, they use the tax loophole to say they are NOT getting profits for that day (thus not having to pay royalties) and then charge the PUBLIC for clean up and repairs....it is SICK!!! They are incapable of doing non-intrusive drilling up here...
i know about the pipeline issue. they should be made to put aside a portion of revenue for upkeep, and it should be strictly checked. this is hardly the only administration that has let them get away with things but the bushies take it to new heights as always. like they have done with mine safety.
It is not in our nation's best interests to continue to spend resources to continue an unhealthy addiction to oil. Instead our resources should be spent on alternative resources. In the mean time our government should be encouraging conservation, but then that means someone isn't making as much money so instead they want an energy policy that encourages consumption. Do you see the how silly that is?
And the reason people could not afford a hybrid and the reason our auto industry has tanked is due to people who feared the economy would be ruined if we raised cafe standards like the rest of the world. Our leader's timidity and lack of imagination under the guise of fearing environmentalists priorities has us here, now, on the verge of a crisis of environmental standards. If we had stayed with the blue print that whacked out environmentalist Jimmy Carter, our econmy would be leading the world in green technologies including vehicles. I fear it is the disprportionate emphasis on the effect of the economy over the needs of our environment, this "philosophy" has hurt the economy AND the environment. Time to rearrange our priorities.
So a government plan would have resulted in us leading in green vehicles. I am sorry, but I want to live in a free country, not one where big government shoves down my throat products and services for which I do not have a demand.
We obviously see the role of government and our economy differently. I believe in the power of the free market, you seem to believe in the power of big government pushing a policy agenda. I do not care if we had a pristine environment, how could you enjoy if you had to live under the thumb of a big federal government?
then you are admitting that the "market" is the most important thing here. more than the environment, energy independence, anything. your choice. we disagree. should we get seat belts out of cars?
Not necessarily saying that the market is the THE most important thing, but I prefer free market forces to overintrusive government regulation. Some government regulation is needed and is going to occur. Seatbelts for example could be seen in this light. But government regulation that severely limits my choices to push one group's policy agenda is not the kind of government regulation I want to see.
what's the "agenda" in environmental protection and energy independence? that's something that benefits all of us, especially since it can be done without causing the calamity you claim. if that's an agenda it's a good one.
When I referring to an agenda I was more refering to global warming. I agree on energy independence though we may differ on the short to midterm path to get there. Environmental protection also does not have to be as extreme and as based on potentially unfounded theories such as global warming.
extreme environmental protection? again you ignore there is not such a prohibitive cost as you claim. and "unfounded" global warming? according to who? exxon? oh i forgot, it's all natural. no way it could be affected by pollution. natural warming excludes all other causes, right?
unrealism? Sorry but life is more important than money. Money has importance of course, but it is the uber-capitalist who are unrealistic. Profits should never ever be a factor when the environment is concerned. I don't care if it's cheaper to pollute, don't. Make your money another way.
no one is talking about trashing the economy. that's your scare tactic. the point of this thread is someone trying to make the bush administration look like they are doing something. they have only begun to even address the issue because the problem is becoming obvious. before that all you guys did was deny deny deny.
I know....according to the left no matter what the stats show there is no room for credit for the Bush administration. So why even discuss it? But the facts do not lie, and those stats show an improvement in greenhouse gas intensity. Does the administration deserve credit? Yes, as much as any politician deserve credit for something our free market economy has done.
does the bush administration get "credit" for trying to suppress official government science reports on climate change being caused by man made sources?
Spare me the tired and inaccurate accusations of the left hating anything Bush does, or denying him credit. He has set back environmental causes decades. Instead of embracing the Kyoto Accord and managin the economy correctly, he dismissed it as only hurting our economy. He desreves credit alright but not for what you think. I despise Bush and his policies because they are counter productive.
I can't stand this money worship. When considering what is best for humanity the economy should be part of the deal but way way down at the bottom of various priorities. Currently the best measure of our economy Bush and co. come up with is our consumption. This idea is counter productive to our well being. Here's a news flash, if the environment sucks no amount of money is going to make people happy. If we can't breath the air or drink the water without health complications the state of the economy is totally irrelevant. The environment trumps the bottom line EVERY TIME. If that troubles you, hoard your dollars in your mattress. Money is not the end all be all. The environment is. You can't make money when your dead.
This has nothing to do with money worship. This has to do with Americans being able to have a job and put food on the table and a roof over their head. If I am forced to live out of a car or on a street because of a collapsed economy due to overzealous environmentalists, I am pretty sure I am not going to wake up in the morning thinking about carbon footprints and pollution. I am going to be thinking about where I can food, shelter and a job. That is about basic necessities, not money worship.
We do agree on one thing. Money is not everything. And I agree that we cannot live on an environmentally dying planet. However, environmentalists have been telling us for years how the air will be unbreathable and the water undrinkable for about as long as I can remember. Look outside. It is not happening. I am not saying there are bona fide environmental issues but those do not get the attention they should get because of all the crying wolf on these dire predictions.
Then your just paranoid and delusional. The economy doesn't have to suffer and won't with responsible governance. But currently the policy of ignoring environmental issues for the sake of keeping our economy chuggin along is just not practical.
So serious question? Based on the improvement of 18% cited in the story for the GDP growth that we experienced, do you really think that significant GDP growth (enough to avoid potential recession) would be realistic at this time with a zero emission increase? Realistically, I do not think we are there. That is not a scare tactic, but a bona fide assessment of the situation.
And don't be accusing me of scare tactics please. You were the one I believe talking about unbreathable air and undrinkable water and implying that we would be dead as a result.
you're very good at "either or" situations.
Ha! Economic doom or life and death? What's more significant? I don't subscribe to the GDP as being a good indicator of anything. It is an abstract concept that does not directly affect the lives like their environment does. My point is simply money and the economy are all too often given too much weight when considering the environment. Instead of being worried about environmental whackos, it is more prudent to be wary of the capitalists who put the bottom line before common sense. Our culture is far to obsessed with money, this is just another example.
Too much emphasis is put on the economy. Weighing the health and well being against the dollars to be made is cynical and counter productive. Realism when it comes to money and the environment is this. Money doesn't matter nearly as much as the environment does. Money is destroying our democracy. Graysonbuzz thanks to folks like yourself we have to wait until there is a crisis for the sake of a handful of people making a killing. thanks for nothing.
Anybody see C-SPAN last night where one of the directors of NASA was talking about global warming...? He stated that there are viable ways to stop the current increase in greenhouse gases- to level it off- and said NASA couldn't do it because the Bush administration cut funding to his department by 30%!! 30%!! That is a lot of money not being used to help the planet...
well it was choice of more tax cuts for the oil companies or....
Exactly. It is clear that the economy beats the environment every time with these yahoos. It should be reversed.
and really it's not even an economic issue. the oil companies are doing so poorly they needed a tax break? or is it the fact that it's just a republican reward to their corporate owners?