English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I can't find any information that indicates that the White House now agrees with the link between greenhouse gasses resulting from human activity and climate change.
Setting aside political retoric, what is the current position US government position on this issue?

2006-10-09 00:42:13 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment

20 answers

It is not George Bush or his administration alone that refuse to admit to the causes of climatic change and to take the right steps to reduce it, but it's the US in general. They understand and know the consequences of signing the Kyoto treaty and are at present too selfish to think about the rest of the world or the generations to come. Now the Indians and the Chinese are polluting the world and adding to the problem and will continue to do so without being checked for the next twenty years, because while the US have not shown any form of leadership in this area, Developing countries cannot see why they should be restricted. The Americans need to wake up fast. There is so much that can still be done, if each country decides to be fair. Do not let this be like the war on terrorism in which battles may be won, but the war itself can never be won with bombs and violence!

2006-10-09 01:23:53 · answer #1 · answered by joechuksy 3 · 2 2

i do no longer deny that there is a phenomena occurring the place the recommend international temperature is increasing, i do no longer besides the indisputable fact that enroll in the loopy concept that it is brought about by humanity, or CO2. The Royal army retains sea temperature readings going back to Henry VIII's reign, and those logs have shown that the temperature of the globe has fluctuated wildly because of the fact the 1500's to the modern. take a glance on the 1800's, while the Thames itself could freeze interior the centre of London, human beings could skate on it it replaced into so frozen, and now you would be fortunate to get some snowflakes fall on London over wintry climate. it quite is a superbly organic technique and taxing the *** off autos, and air return and forth and so forth won't resolve something, aside from the crooked scientists lining their wallet with bogus examine supplies given to further 'examine' the subject.

2016-10-16 00:04:47 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

The reason Bush hasn't signed the Kyoto agreement is that he's only learned up the the letter "r" in George's Big Book Of Letters. He's on schedule to reach "z" by the August 2007 so there might be a better chance then.

2006-10-09 00:54:34 · answer #3 · answered by sarcasticquotemarks 5 · 2 0

First of all, if you truly wanted to set aside political rhetoric, you would have worded your question more honestly.

I've never heard Bush once deny the existence of climate change, and neither have you. Few deny that climate change has been going on for thousands of years.

Instead, like many others, he has questioned whether the current changes are unusual, the claimed causes if they are, the extent man is the cause, and some of the rather extreme proposed solutions.

2006-10-09 00:59:49 · answer #4 · answered by Dwight S 3 · 2 1

Let's differentiate between "climate change" and human-induced planetary warming, aka "global warming." Climate change is beyond human control; human-induced global warming is looked at skeptically by the current administration.

By the way, Clinton didn't sign Kyoto, either. It's bad policy.

2006-10-09 00:50:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Maybe he believes it's all down to sun spots (an actual theory that's gaining a lot of support to explain some of our current weather).

However to try and explain the US governments stance on the environment without getting into something that sounds like rhetoric is difficult. All politicians care about is power, 99% of them will do and say anything to hold onto it - even if it means endangering the world.

I don't really care one way or the other, I've been preparing for an apocalypse for years :-)

MAD MAX here I come!!!!

2006-10-09 00:49:24 · answer #6 · answered by Warrior Hamster 3 · 2 0

Although his spin doctors have gotten him to admit to acknowledging the existance and effects of global warming and its impact I doubt that he fully understands either the subject or the ramifications of global warming for the simple reason that he lacks the intellectual capacity to understand it. Much was made of the fact that he has a MS in Economics from Yale but one must understand that universities like Yale don't amass endowment funds in the hundreds of millions of dollars by refusing to graduate the sons and daughters of the rich. George W. Bush's degrees were bought and paid for by Daddy Bush.

2006-10-09 01:39:39 · answer #7 · answered by hodgeshirley 2 · 2 0

In a word - politics. It's a Republican thing. You know, exploit the Earth for all the riches you can take and don't worry about the results, you can always blame it on the Democrats.

2006-10-09 06:00:18 · answer #8 · answered by Amphibolite 7 · 1 0

I'm not sure, but I'll tell you this, human influence on Global Warming isn't even a drop in the ocean, a single volcanic eruption spews more harmful **** into the atmosphere than mankind has put out in the last century, we're doin didly out here.

2006-10-09 01:05:31 · answer #9 · answered by Archangel 4 · 0 1

Yes he does still deny the fact of Global Warming especially where Oil and Industry tells him to.

2006-10-09 09:11:57 · answer #10 · answered by rogerglyn 6 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers