Economies Majorus ... Time is ticking.

President Bush likes to fish.

He also likes to pass legislation.

Today, April 17, 2008, marks the third Major Economies meeting on Energy and Climate in Paris, France.

When this group first got together the outlook wasn't rosie. It still isn't, but European countries are spearheading the effort to slashing their carbon emissions as rapidly as possible. The European Union wants to cut emissions 20% by the year 2020.

I'm sure they can do it. To match that encouraging goal, President Bush had this to add to the mix on behalf of the American people:

"I have put our nation on a path to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions. In 2002, I announced our first step: to reduce America's greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent through 2012. I'm pleased to say that we remain on track to meet this goal even as our economy has grown 17 percent.

As we take these steps here at home, we're also working internationally on a rational path to addressing global climate change. When I took office seven years ago, we faced a problem. A number of nations around the world were preparing to implement the flawed approach of Kyoto Protocol. In 1997, the United States Senate took a look at the Kyoto approach and passed a resolution opposing this approach by a 95 to nothing vote."

So, El Presidente wants to slow emissions, but by only 18% in the next four years? Quelle surprise he's passing the buck to the next administration. Wait, there's more.

"The Kyoto Protocol would have required the United States to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The impact of this agreement, however, would have been to limit our economic growth and to shift American jobs to other countries -- while allowing major developing nations to increase their emissions. Countries like China and India are experiencing rapid economic growth -- and that's good for their people and it's good for the world. This also means that they are emitting increasingly large quantities of greenhouse gases -- which has consequences for the entire global climate."

Of course they're damning the planet. These countries are finally moving through their industrial revolutions. Americans did that decades ago- and we polluted the hell out of our environment in the process. I'm not sure how our historically poor behavior gets lost in the fray. Perhaps if we could learn from our mistakes, we could help guide developing nations on their path to success- at least provide examples of how to do a better job at growing than we ever did.

Then, he makes this statement that upon first glance looks like valid improvement:

"Today, I'm announcing a new national goal: to stop the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.

To reach this goal, we will pursue an economy-wide strategy that builds on the solid foundation that we have in place. As part of this strategy, we worked with Congress to pass energy legislation that specifies a new fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and requires fuel producers to supply at least 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022. This should provide an incentive for shifting to a new generation of fuels like cellulosic ethanol that will reduce concerns about food prices and the environment."

Okay ... he says "stop the growth of" our emissions. The United States' emissions levels have grown by 1% every year for the past decade or so. So, if we stop that growth in 2025, it will have grown by 1% every year up until then. That's a 17% increase. Compare that to the EU who will REDUCE their emissions by 3% more than that by 2020. They'll be ahead of us in a charge that should be ours to lead.

As for the ethanol he's so fond of: It's a bad crop. Corn isn't a miracle plant. It doesn't absorb CO2 like other crops, it damages soil, requires pesticides and fertilizers ... its popularity is encouraging farmers to switch their produce crops to ethanol corn, making food prices sky rocket. Ethanol is bad for the current engines our transportation units use. Putting money into ethanol production instead of advanced and alternative fuel technologies is like dieters drinking Diet Coke instead of water: Sure, there aren't any calories, but the artificial sweeteners and the other crud in the soda will give you cancer and rot your teeth. Ethanol may reduce emissions to a point, but it won't save us in the long run.

Here's the transcript of President Bush's speech on climate from yesterday.



This is a diagram from the New York Times, published in March of last year. Predictions are made, proposals to solve the problem are on the table. Go figure John McCain is behind one of the more effective proposals.

Why haven't we adopted any of these strategies in the past year? Where is the action we need to make a change?

Is anyone else frustrated by any of this?

The answers are there. There are things we can do. Now we have to just DO IT ALREADY.

This slow move to progress is so unlike everything we stand for in this country. I don't understand why we insist on dragging our feet.

Please comment, share your thoughts- I want to know how you guys feel about all of this.

Best,
Say