Is he still questioning the science behind it, or is he accepting the science but saying that the proposed plan of action is wrong? From the current news media, it sounds like the latter, but I want to know for sure.
2007-12-18 14:36:06 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
to sum up stalling the process..
2007-12-18 14:40:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
My take? With Bush it's almost always about the political calculation. Since even many of his supporters are starting to believe, he now proclaims that the science has suddenly become convincing. By portraying any immediate action to cut greenhouse gases as damaging to the economy and suggesting instead we just hang out until some technical marvel magically comes along to provide us with green energy, he gets to do the exact same nothing that he was doing before but now he can talk like an environmentalist.
2007-12-19 04:07:18 · answer #2 · answered by PFuller 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush first acknowledged that humans are causing the current global warming in 2002.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm
His position on global warming is mainly that we should let the free market regulate carbon emissions rather than having governments set a cap. He's resisted taking any action in limiting US greenhouse gas emissions because he's worried it will hurt our domestic oil companies.
In the recent Bali conference the US didn't want to agree to any concrete emissions reductions goals, but in the end compromised to agree to these goals at the end of 2009. Coincidentally, Bush will be out of office by then.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec07/bali_12-17.html
Basically he's acknowledged it's a problem but he's not going to do anything about it during his term in office.
2007-12-19 12:27:23 · answer #3 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think he has a specific position. He is not into science - I don't think the vice president will allow any proposed action - one can envision them joking about the subject over non-alcoholic brewskis at Crawford. Condy said governments (Iran) should be transparent - like Mr. Cheney was about his energy policy meetings ?
2007-12-18 22:49:59 · answer #4 · answered by oatie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He doesn't have a position on global warming except to ignore it. He would have to understand science and actually take off his rose colored glasses to visually see events transpiring now. But, since he does not stand to gain economically on it he turns a blind eye.
2007-12-18 23:51:14 · answer #5 · answered by yourmtgbanker 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pres. Bush position on "global warming" is the same opinion that the Canadians have. Ask for they're opinion.
2007-12-20 00:59:57 · answer #6 · answered by Tom not on Tour 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
what global warming?
in 1895 the New York Times was running stories
about a cataclysmic upcoming event
global COOLING
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
how inconvenient
2007-12-18 22:44:19 · answer #7 · answered by tom4bucs 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
He doesn't care, unless the proposals interfere with big business making money, then he cares.
Frankly, I don't think he believes there's a problem.
2007-12-18 22:39:06 · answer #8 · answered by Dan H 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
He doesn't have one. Afterall, the Summer's are ALWAYS long & hot in Crawford, Texas. -So WHY should it be any different- anywhere else??! :(
2007-12-18 23:06:25 · answer #9 · answered by Joseph, II 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush does not believe in global warming because it is a project of the Democrats.
2007-12-18 22:39:18 · answer #10 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 6⤋