Two paths for Global Warming

Back40 at CrumbTrail points to an announcement from the Bush White House and draws a parallel between Climate Variability and the Tsunami Relief Effort:

Climate Nous

Dr John H Marburger, III, science adviser to President George W Bush and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, makes the case for the US approach to climate variability.

"The issue of climate change respects no border. Its effects cannot be reined in by an army or advanced by any ideology. Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world." - President George W Bush, June 11, 2001. With these words, President Bush clearly acknowledged the seriousness of climate change and launched a responsible and practical climate policy with three primary aims: (1) to introduce new technologies for producing and using energy that can dramatically reduce the relationship between economic growth and the generation of greenhouse gases; (2) to improve scientific tools and understanding needed to respond more effectively to the problems posed by climate change; and 3) to enlist the cooperation of other nations to address the entire spectrum of climate change issues. To advance these aims, the US spent approximately $5.1 billion in financial year 2004 on climate change science research, advanced energy technologies, voluntary programmes, and related international assistance - far more than any other nation.

See the article for a brief expansion of the details of that vision. Most of what we hear is that the US does not support Kyoto and so is not taking climate variability seriously or doing useful things. Given that even full compliance with Kyoto - something that the signatories are no where near to and is exceedingly unlikely to occur - does nothing about climate variability, this is an obviously nonsensical view. The US approach is far better. It remains to be seen whether the various policy aims will be achieved and whether they are effective over time, but it is clearly a better direction than Kyoto, more likely to yield progress. There is a parallel to the current tsunami relief efforts. The UN/EU approach is to talk more than act, and restrict acts to planning conducted in plush surrounds. The US approach is the reverse, more act than talk, and doing those things that are immediately useful in parallel with planning. The more convinced you are that climate variability will be significant and that it is caused by humans the more you should support this "vision" since it has far more likelihood of having significant effects. Taking immediate actions, such as the Methane to Markets Partnership, plucks the most valuable low hanging fruit for magnified effect. Spending serious cash on a variety of research initiatives at the same time is the most likely way to achieve larger effects over time. Immediate benefits, longer term benefits. Why aren't those who claim to be concerned about climate change supporting these efforts? It seems like they don't give a fig about climate, that it is just a wedge issue to advance their otherwise inimical political objectives. Shame on them. We would do well to spend our energies pressing for more and faster progress in this direction rather than obstructing progress for petty political advantage. How did it come to be that the "environmental movement" is effectively anti-environment? Politics is so weird. It doesn't matter if we dislike Bush or disagree with many of his policies, we can still support those that are both sensible and effective. Environmentalists need to crawl out of the cesspool of party politics and do something useful for the environment for a change.

Indeed. There is historical record of periodic climate variability - 900 years ago, wine grapes were growing in Greenland. In the 1500's, people were ice skating on the great canals of Europe. We are presently leaving this cooling period and entering into a warming one. Rather than sit around in meetings, the USA is trying to do something effective. Kyoto was broken before it left the conference room. It's climate models are obsolete and the economic cost outweighs an benefit that would result. The world would be better off spending that money on Malaria, AIDS, Clean Water. Once again, we are reminded of the gulf between Old Europe and America/New Europe.