why doesn't george bush care about global warming or the developing nations?

Answer 1

If there isnt money in it for Bush's big business special interests, or will result in some major Republican political win, Bush wouldn't care if the planet was uninhabitable.

Answer 2

What is the chance of one of the people who answered these questions dieing today ? Probably fairly low. But some of them will have life insurance. Car accident ? Moderate risk, still they have car insurance. House burning down or flooding. Very low, but they still have house insurance.

The chances of global warming being real ? I don't really know. Some say it is high. Some say it is low. But even if low don't we need some insurance ?
What are the chances of an ice age following global warming ? Again, who knows for certain ? But an ice age raises the possibility of the extinction of the human race.

Whose job is it to worry about global extinction ?
I would say it is both political and industrial leaders.
They are the ones entrusted with our physical and financial future.
Also religious leaders need to do more. What is the Pope's position on this subject ?
We as the people also need to do more, but lets face it we are all pretty much sheep waiting to be told what to do.

Bush doesn't seem to care about global warming because he is not the thinking type.
Look at the amount of thought he put into Afghanistan, Iraq and Katrina. His latest ideas on the ongoing wars are that someone else will need to sort it out after his reign is over. What sort of person says that when they are still in charge ? That reminds me of the worst project managers I have ever worked with.
He is completely out of his depth. He is more the sheep type.

So in summary, yes, I think Bush needs to do a lot more.
He is the CEO of the largest budget in the world.
He has influence over the scientific community.
But he won't.

The worst case global warming scenario is human extinction. It doesn't matter how likely it is. It should be the top item on every world leader's agenda.

Answer 3

YOU don't care. If you did care, you'd learn/study what President Bush has accomplished, regarding every issue.

Don't ask why he doesn't care, when you have no clue what he's done.
If you care about certain issues, then do something to prove it. Claiming someone else doesn't care, only proves that you care more about pointing out the cares of others.
President Bush cares about so many things. If you think he isn't doing enough, then help out. Complaining is not helping; global warming, developing nations, You, Me or President Bush.
Don't tell me what others aren't doing, tell me what you are doing.
Stop being a victim and Start doing something positive.

Thanks.

Answer 4

no longer something that's a organic technique. using fact the 1940's to the 1970's the international became cooling and each physique became in contact relating to the earth frezzing over. From the 1970's till now it has slowly been heating up agian to the temp. that the international became at around the 1940's. and don't think that people are inflicting worldwide warming. did you be attentive to that people purely produce around one million/5 of the full CO2 interior the international. the different components are issues alongside with volcanoes(which produce almost a similar volume of CO@ as people.) what's going to the liberals say next as quickly as we swap to photograph voltaic autos and worldwide warming remains occurring. i be attentive to what they're going to say " We might desire to plug up the volcanoes to decrease CO2 emmissions."

Answer 5

Hard 17201... Just in the interests of accuracy, the USA, despite being a mere 6 percent of the world's population, consumes around 26 percent of the world's energy resources, and produces approximately 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. (NB These figures are from the USA Energy Department report for 2005; the figures are expected to be higher for 2006.) They certainly illustrate the profligate and wasteful nature of the USA's energy policies, don't you agree? So, what ever the US does in the way of handing out a few dollars to aid AIDS (Bill Gates and Richard Branson are doing much more), it does not balance the harm it is doing to the global environment.
You say that the USA is 'developing' Iraq. This is an utterly fatuous statement to make in the light of actual events. It can be seen, even by the most myopic Bush supporter, that the USA has been responsible for the effective destruction of much of that unfortunate country. More tragically - as far as the history of civilisation is concerned - is the fact that priceless historical buildings, going back thousands of years, archeological sites (such as the Hanging Gardens of Babylon), and priceless artefacts have been seriousy damaged or even destroyed. These are (were) the heritage of _all_ Mankind, not just of Iraq. Bush's precipitous and unwise actions resulted in this vandalism, and barbarism on this level will not be forgotten by history. Neither will the invasion of Iraq be seen as anything other than a revengeful and savage act of a modern day visigoth.
And why was the invasion carried out? To save the West from terrorism? Well, the answer to that is bull***t! It was carried out as the culmination of a Bush/Rumsfelt plan, prepared two years prior to the actual attack, to gain control of Iraq's oil reserves. This was admitted two years ago by senior figures in the US oil industry, when annotated oil field maps of Iraq were revealed. All that was needed was an excuse to invade - and 9/11 provided that excuse.
And we can forget the WMD reason, the 'bringing of democracy' notion, and the fighting of terrorism (there were no terrorists in Iraq until the war started!). But we can easily see that America wanted to gain control of Iraq's oil so that the 'good ol boys' could keep driving their SUV gas guzzlers, and Americans in general could continue to enjoy low 'gas' prices.
Incidentally, as far as fighting terrorism is concerned, every report emanating from western countries, including the USA's own FBI and intelligence committees, has said that the threat of terrorism in the West is now infinitely greater than before the invasion. A schoolboy, having read a simplified history of the Middle East, could have predicted that that would happen!
So, for heaven's sake accept that the invasion of Iraq was a gross error of judgement, that the USA and its allies are losing the war's aftermath, that a true democracy is far from assured, that a de facto tribal war effectively exists (between 50 and 100 people killed _every_ day - and regrettably these figures often include coallition troops), that it will take billions of dollars and many years to restore Iraq's infrastructure to a prewar state, that Iran will probably gain great influence in the region as a result of the war, that American and British troops will continue to bear the brunt of the savagery that has been unleashed, and that all of us in the West have had, and will continue to have our lives blighted by increased Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, as well as having our civil liberties curtailed in many ways.
So was it worth invading Iraq? I think not. But to Bush and his 'oil men' cabinet members, the goal of controlling a large oil reserve was too tempting to listen to the World when it said "Think George, think" .. but GWB is not exactly known for that particular trait, is he?

NOTE My apologies to the questioner for going off at a bit of a tangent, but as a person (ex air force vet, too) who was within 30 minutes of being in the Fedex office, #1 Tower WTC on the morning of 9/11, and who was in England on 7/7 when the London Underground was hit, I find it amazing that some people still think invading Iraq was a 'good thing', thus blindly supporting an action which is likely bring more 9/11's and 7/7's to the West.
Still, as long as they get their cheap 'gas' why should they care? After all, they don't actually see the blood of the US and UK troops (and of the innocent Iraqis) that is part of the fluid that flows into their tanks every time they fill up. Mind you, if they did, they might be less 'gung-ho' about the invasion....

Answer 6

Who says global warming is bad? Increased harvest times, more crops in more parts of the world, increased moisture.....global warming has its benefits. The globe has not been this warm since the Renaissance. And everybody knows DaVinci loved his SUV.....

In regards to the development of third world countries, Bush has given more financial aid and forgiven more debt than any president before him. I guess he doesn't care because he does it quietly rather than giving a token amount and praising himself for it.

Answer 7

Global warming is the same level as the threat of terrorism and developing nations should be given aid to have programs for environmental protection because both issues are concerns of the US as a superpower to survive as world leader.

Answer 8

1.If humans caused global warming why then throughout earth history have the planet warm and cooled many times before. 2. We are going through a period of solar flares from the sun over the last decade these flares are million of degrees hotter than normal activity would this not have a more severe affect on our planet than anything we could do. why no debate about this. 3. You are one of those individuals that blame GW for everything I suspect it is a mental condition.

Answer 9

We are GIVING more money and aid to "developing nations" and all the rest of the world together.
DO A LITTLE HOMEWORK. So you won't embarrass yourself again.
Global Warming being caused by humans is a HOAX.

Answer 10

Doesn't he? I can not answer for him but I can say that the majority of the worlds green-house gases come from outside the U.S. So why are we always the ones getting the blame? Also, have you been in a coma for 5 years? Are we not trying to develope Iraq? Afghanistan? Didn't we just donate like a couple billion dollars to Africa to fight AIDES? I for the life of me have no idea what you lefties are smoking.