2007-06-09 08:41:08 · 17 answers · asked by John V 5 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
He did what made sense for him given his current strategy towards the issue of global warming. Some will say he didn't do enough, some will say he did too much, very few will say he was just right. It's not a matter of whether he did enough, he did it. We should focus on what the implications are of what he did and what we want to encourage to happen in the future. Anyone can complain. Always keep your eye on the outcome you are trying to achieve and you'll be better off.
2007-06-12 12:24:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course not!
He is a politician, as were the others, not a scientist, and neither were they.
If G8 had had the total sum of scientific data, and some competent scientists who look it ALL over and offer practical suggestions, which is often hard for scientists, not being economists or sociologists, we might get somewhere.
Bush, like the other politicians there, looks to what makes the most political hay for his government, not what is beneficial for the world overall. Those who care and do practical help are never heads of government these days. Or movie makers, or in the UN. Usually are poor, too.
All the political leaders of today are concerned in little tiny areas that affect their careers, their perqs, their retirement, their popularity ratings...and seldom if ever the overall fate of the world. And most all filmmakers and entertainment figures are in the same boat. And they cater to those who want "fun" right now.
Those who think 20-30-50 years ahead and for the general good of the whole world are generally ridiculed, unless it can be twisted to give power and control over everybody to some political group with an agenda.
If you do not believe me, look at the book sales of the books that discuss practical doable projects that will help all the world in the future, vs books on how to be popular, or get lots of money, or manipulate others. QED
2007-06-09 10:18:07 · answer #2 · answered by looey323 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What? Are you joking?
Maybe a better question would be "did Bush do anything at the G8 summit to address global warming?"
My friends and I couldn't help but to laugh when Bush said that nations need to do more. He and his administration have not only denied that there is global warming, but have fought every attempt to make the U.S. more responsible.
His talk at the summit was mere political rhetoric, and done solely for the cameras.
2007-06-09 08:50:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
He's failed to address the issue of global warming but suceeded in further alienating America from the rest of the world. Why!
With just about every country hammering on Bush's door and telling him to get his act together all he's basically done is to admit global warming is a serious issue and then say he's not prepared to address the issue.
The way Bush is viewed by many outside the US is as an obstinate school-boy, hiding from facts, running away from responsibility, passing the buck to someone else and seemingly hell-bent on turning the US into a pariah.
2007-06-09 15:34:59 · answer #4 · answered by Trevor 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
MAN: It´s called GLOBAL warming because it is a GLOBAL problem.
You might have noticed that we share the same planet and the same atmosphere.
Trying to solve the problem on your own is what was wrong with the US and China. It is clear from the experience that either you get a global agreement and cover everybody or do not have a global agreement in which case even one major player not playing the game would be an excuse for others to do so !!!
Sorry, politics is just like this !
2007-06-09 09:45:54 · answer #5 · answered by NLBNLB 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Of course not, Bush represents the production and sale of oil. Bush has no interest in the effects of Global Warming, he only lives for himself. He doesn't even care about his own children or grandchildren.
Greedy, money mongers!
Comprehensive Method to Reverse Global Warming:
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/jamesbdunn?p=224
2007-06-09 08:49:34 · answer #6 · answered by jamesbdunn 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
sturdy component yet you're scuffling with a dropping conflict because of the fact most of the imbeciles in this positioned up get there medical education from mainstream media and function neither the inclination or intelligence to verify an relatively medical magazine oh and new scientist does not count selection because it incredibly is dumbed down for the inept there is wish although because of the fact the way george is going you wont have the skill to discover the money for to purchase oil quickly playstation for the ill stated carbon dioxide emmisions from human beings has a negligable effect
2016-11-09 22:29:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not in Bush's personal financial interest to address global warming so I doubt any of his input has any meaning at all.
2007-06-09 09:45:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No.
What Bush is saying now translates to:
OK, you got me. Because of the overwhelming scientific evidence I can't keep saying global warming isn't real. So my plan is......
to put off any action until after I leave office.
2007-06-09 08:48:24 · answer #9 · answered by Bob 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
are you kidding me?
that guy FIRST trys to say global warming doesnt exist
then when he cant do that anymore he makes up huge
exsuses why not to help out on global warming. he is a MORON!
the united states is the BIGGEST threat to global warming because we are country that lets out the most CO2 from our cars in the ENTIRE world. and the government refuses to cut
down on on anything having to do with car travel because they
say it would hurt the economy.
bush is a LOSER and doesnt care whether or not he wrecks the enviorment.
2007-06-09 09:52:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋