Tag: George W Bush

Categories
Kyoto Protocol Russia

April 6, 2001 – “EU takes Kyoto fight to Moscow”

On this day, 24 years ago, 

EU takes Kyoto fight to Moscow

April 6, 2001

MOSCOW, Russia — A European Union delegation has arrived in Moscow to discuss the fate of the Kyoto climate treaty.

The delegation started a international tour on Friday aimed at shoring up support for the treaty now that Washington has pulled out of the agreement.

CNN.com – EU takes Kyoto fight to Moscow – April 6, 2001

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that George W Bush who had “won” the 2000 election via the Supreme Court, had immediately backtracked on a campaign-trail promise to regulate CO2 emissions.  Funny that. And by crashing the international negotiations, he forced the Europeans to try to stitch things back together again. Thus the trip to Moscow.

What I think we can learn from this is that you can’t trust Americans.

What happened next The Russians finally decided in 2004 that they’d do the deal – in exchange for World Trade Organisation membership.  Kyoto came to be, and so the whole “what do we replace Kyoto with?” caravan got moving, until the wheels fell off at Copenhagen in 2009.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

 April 6, 2006 – Canadian “experts” (not) keep culture wars going.

April 6, 2006 – the anti-climate dam of John Howard begins to crack…

April 6, 2012 – Genetically-modified humans? – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

April 2, 2007 -Massachusetts (etc) get Supreme Court to tell the EPA that carbon dioxide is a pollutant

On this day 18 years ago, the US Supreme Court – albeit on a 5-4 split – obeyed the laws – of physics.  In a case brought by various states, because George W Bush’s people at the top of the Environmental Protection Agency were dragging their heels on doing anything about, oh, you know (checks notes)… THE END OF THE FUCKING WORLD>

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a 5–4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which Massachusetts, along with eleven other states and several cities of the United States, represented by James Milkey, brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) represented by Gregory G. Garre to force the federal agency to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that pollute the environment and contribute to climate change.

The context was that the EPA had been created in October 1970, thanks to societal pressure, bipartisan supporting and Republican Richard Nixon going with the flow to grab credit.  It has a spotty record, shall we say, on climate (though see the October 1983 report “Can We Delay A Greenhouse Warming?” and various sea-level rise conferences and reports.

In 1988 George W Bush’s dad, George HW, had said he would deal with the greenhouse effect with the White House effect. The toe-rag lied.

On the campaign trail in 2000 George W. Bush had said he would regulate CO2.  He then, after having the presidency handed to him by his dad’s mates on the Supreme Court, pulled out of Kyoto Protocol negotiations and did everything he could to do nothing on climate change.  Various state governments, fed up, sued.


What we learn. We are not a serious species. You can love us, but we are not a serious species.

What happened next.  More back and forth, more “fun” and games. And the emissions climb, and Mephistopheles has turned up with the bill and is gonna drag us all to hell.  So it goes.

Haven’t checked on how the Supreme Court is made up these days, but I am sure it’s chock full of intelligent, non-doctrinaire men and women alive to the contradictions of capitalism and willing to stand up for justice.

Also on this day

April 2, 1968 – Oz Senate debates Air Pollution Select Committee

April 2, 1979 – AAAS workshop in Anaheim begins…

April 2, 2008 – Senator Barack Obama blathers about coal

Categories
technosalvationism United States of America

September 28, 2007 – Bush invokes “technology” to fix climate. Like morons everywhere.

Seventeen years ago, on this day, September 28th, 2007, George Bush showed what he was capable of. Again,

28 September 2007 Bush speech

We’ve identified a problem, let’s go solve it together. We will harness the power of technology. There is a way forward that will enable us to grow our economies and protect the environment, and that’s called technology. We’ll meet our energy needs. We’ll be good stewards of this environment. Achieving these goals will require a sustained effort over many decades. This problem isn’t going to be solved overnight. (Bush 2007)

(Scrase and Smith, 2009:707-8).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Bali meeting of the UNFCCC was impending. And there was a lot of pressure about getting a “Roadmap to Copenhagen.” On adaptation mitigation, technology transfer, a deal would be stuck at Copenhagen that was going to Save The World. And Bush had spent his time as president as a meat puppet for Dick Cheney and the oil companies. He was not in favour of any meaningful action on climate change because it might constrain his fossil fuel buddies. And so, when you can’t do full on denial what other fallbacks do you have other than a bit of lukewarm-ism, (“it’s not as bad as the hysterical activists are saying”) and of course, our old friend technology; technology will save the day. 

What we learn is that technology will not save the day. It’s one of the most reliable instruments for the opponents of meaningful climate action. 

What happened next? Bush stopped giving much of a shit about anything. And there is the famous so long from the world’s biggest polluter comment at the G7 meeting the following year. 

The Bali COP did start the gun on negotiations. And Copenhagen was a complete failure. Pretty much a complete failure. And Bush? Bush was just an asshole. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs

Also on this day: 

September 28, 1997 – Australian denialist spouting tosh to his US mates.

September 28, 2000 – Liberal MP goes full cooker on Kyoto as threat to sovereignty.

September 28, 2008 – “Wake Up Freak Out” posted online

Categories
Denial Science

February 18, 2004 – “An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science”

Twenty years ago, on this day, February 18th, 2004, some scientists tried to expose the George W Bush (actually Cheney) Administration for what it was.

“Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science”- Statement to Bush from 62 preeminent scientists including Nobel laureates, National Medal of Science recipients, former senior advisers to administrations of both parties, numerous members of the National Academy of Sciences, and other well-known researchers

http://www.webexhibits.org/bush/1.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bush had pulled out of the negotiations around the Kyoto Protocol, had called for the NAS to do a study and then ignored that study. And was generally being George Bush, aka Dick Cheney’s glove pocket. 

What we learn is that National Academy of Sciences sounds prestigious and powerful, but it has very limited power. They’ve been aware of the potential for climate change since well, at least 1957 when they produced booklets as part of the International Geophysical Year that pointed to it as a possibility. Then lots of research in the 1970s and 1980s… Pleaded with Dubya’s dad, to little (no?) effect. (see January 5,1989 – National Academy of Science tries to chivvy Bush.)

What happened next, Bush won the 2004 election and we had another four years of denial, obfuscation, outright stupidity. It is what it is.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

Feb 18, 1978 – “#Climate Experts see a Warming Trend”

February 18, 2011 – Scientist quits advisor role (because ignored on climate?)

Categories
United States of America

May 7, 2001 – The American way of life is non-negotiable. Again.

Twenty two years ago, on this day, May 7, 2001, George “W” Bush’s spokesman was telling the truth.

 “The President believes that it’s an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy-makers to protect [it]. The American way of life is a blessed one . . . The President also believes that the American people’s use of energy is a reflection of the strength of our economy, of the way of life that the American people have come to enjoy.”

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/briefings/20010507.htm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 374ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that George Bush had pulled the US out of the negotiations for the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. The September 11 attacks were still four months away (Bush basically read about them, was warned about them over the summer and did nowt). 

Anyway, this idea that the American way of life, which is actually about the high hydrocarbon way of life for a minority of people within the US,  – the wealthy, is somehow sacred. It’s fascinating from a theological point of view, prosperity, gospel and all that nonsense. 

See also Bush Snr  “American way of life is non-negotiable” in 1992.

What I think we can learn from this

Humans are very good, at pretending things that give them comfort and power are somehow ordained by a bearded sky god.  It can form a last redoubt of “Oh, you don’t respect my beliefs as a member of the faith-based community?” (Well, no, I’m a member of the reality based community.)

What happened next

Bush continued to shit all over the planet. And in my fantasy, he’s in the next cell along to John Howard, at The Hague to be charged with crimes against humanity and future generations…

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Media United States of America

March 7, 2001 – CNN unintentionally reveals deep societal norms around democracy

 Twenty two years ago, on this day, March 7, 2001, the US news network CNN showed what is “normal” and what is “bad” in its cosmology, when reporting on old white men in suits versus protests…

7 March 2001 CNN reports on climate protests “marring” (pointless) climate talks – Protests mar climate talks 

https://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/italy/03/03/environment.summit/index.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 372.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there were  climate negotiations in Italy, at which the Americans were – surprise surprise – basically saying “fuck you.” This was shortly after George Bush was selected as President. 

The Hague negotiations in November 2000 had ended in such a disaster that the meeting wasn’t finally closed. And so with your big Cheney as his vice president, it looks pretty perilous for international climate negotiations.

What I think we can learn from this

What’s important here is the framing that protest activity by civil society would besmirch the nice, cool, rational debates of our lords and masters. Now, if you put it bluntly, the journalist who wrote it, or the sub-editor who wrote it, would either say, “Well, look, it’s just a headline. And we don’t have much space.” They might agree with the point about the politics at a superficial level. But if pushed, they would say “No, why should the mob be able to influence what the smart technocrats are doing?” 

And that hatred of ordinary people, and their involvement is persistent. And it’s the case that if you don’t abide by that, then you don’t get your role as a journalist or as an academic or whatever. 

If you’re interested in this stuff, then obviously, reading Chomsky is a good idea, but also the life and times of Randolph Bourne who died just after World War One. Obviously Gramsci on the power of hegemony. If and how the popular press works, and any number of publications by the Glasgow Media Group etc

What happened next

Bush pulled out of Kyoto, an entirely sane and rational decision “marred” by protest.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs..

Categories
Agnotology anti-reflexivity Denial United States of America

March 4, 2003 – “Luntz memo” exposes Bush climate strategy 

Twenty years ago, on this day, March 4, 2003, President Bush’s greenwash strategy was revealed in all its steaming glory 

The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has “lost the environmental communications battle” and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

“The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.”

Burkeman, O. 2003. Memo Exposes Bush’s New Greenwash Strategy.  The Guardian, March 4

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that George Bush was clearly not going to do anything about climate change. It’s not clear that Al Gore, who actually won the  2000 presidential election, would have either, but there you are. So it became a question of how to position the issue. So-called “perception management.” And the Luntz memo basically says, 

What I think we can learn from this

The battle for the control of the public mind is a never-ending battle. (Or rather, the propagandisation and the attempts to combat it, so that we can have a public sphere not dominated by rich vested interests, is never-ending). And as reality, physical reality, impinges more and more, you’re gonna find more and more people spewing propaganda and more and more people and this is the crux, wanting to believe it. So, this is not brainwashing against resistance. This is going with the grain.

What happened next

Luntz sort of kind of recanted ,in 2019

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/21/frank-luntz-wrong-climate-change-1470653

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs..

Categories
United States of America

January 29, 2001 – President Bush announces “energy taskforce” #TaskforceAnnouncementGrift

Twenty-two years ago, on this day, January 29 2001, newly-installed President George “Dubya” Bush announces an “energy taskforce”

The National Energy Policy Development Group was a group, created by Executive Order on January 29, 2001, that was chaired by Vice President Richard Cheney. The group, commonly referred to as the “Cheney Energy Task Force,” produced a National Energy Policy report in May 2001. [1] In a cover note to George W. Bush, Cheney wrote that “we have developed a national energy policy designed to help bring together business, government, local communities and citizens to promote dependable, affordable and environmentally sound energy for the future.” [2] (pdf) The composition of the task force, according to the report, was confined to government officials.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Cheney_Energy_Task_Force

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.

The context was that Bush had won the Presidency (if not the actual election – but, you know, details) with the help of his Dad’s mates on the Supreme Court. The power behind the throne, Dick Cheney, was clearly interested in coal and nuclear, not this carbon emissions reductions nonsense.  So, there had to be a process for backtracking on loose talk of regulating carbon emissions that had been made during the campaign. A “taskforce” should do the job…

What I think we can learn from this

Taskforces are absolute catnip to liberals.

They function either as “cooling out the mark” – the way that a promise can be broken (“we consulted independent experts.. Changed circumstances… therefore…”), or as a way of delaying (perhaps indefinitely) any actual ACTION on promises, while offering CV tokens and grin-and-grip opportunities to would-be trouble-makers, who become obsessed with maintaining their spot at the table, rather than actually keeping tabs on what is (not) being done, or building political power outside ‘the Beltway’/’Westminster’ etc.

What happened next

Bush pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations, and started mangling the language in the direction of absurd techno-fantasies. True leadership.

Cheney fought two legal challenges against releasing the records of this Taskforce. Of course he did.

https://www.npr.org/2007/07/18/12067186/cheneys-energy-task-force-records-revealed

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

June 11, 1997 – US ambassador says Australia should stop being so awful on #climate

On this day, 25 June, 1997, (25 years ago), the Clinton Administration was making life a little difficult for Prime Minister John Howard, who was sending emissaries around the world in an effort to find allies for his “Australia should get an opt out from this Kyoto thing” position.

According to Johnston and Stokes (1997)

“As late as June 1997, the US Ambassador to Australia, Ms Genta Hawkins Holmes, stated that the US would seek “binding, realistic and achievable” targets at Kyoto; she claimed that Australia should make greater use of renewable energy sources and improve its “relatively inefficient use of hydrocarbon energy.” 

Johnston, W.R.  and Stokes, G. 1997.  Problems in Australian Foreign Policy: January- July 1997. Australian Journal of Politics and History, Vol.43(3), pp.293-300.

See also – “Shared Values Drive US-Australia Alliance”. The Australian, 12 June 1997: 

“Ambassador Holmes Gives Elementary Warning on Warming”, Sydney Morning Herald, 12 June 1997.

Why this matters. 

Australian federal governments have usually played a spoiling role in international negotiations (at the behest of powerful fossil fuel companies)

What happened next?

Australia, although diplomatically isolated, got a sweet sweet deal at Kyoto (via good luck and dummy spits).

And then refused to ratify. It was helped in this, enormously, by the selection of George W. Bush as President in 2000.

Categories
UNFCCC United States of America

June 1, 1992 – “environmental extremists” want to shut down the United States, says President Bush

On this day, June 1, 1992, President George H.W. Bush, says that a habitable planet is an extremist demand. 

“We cannot permit the extreme in the environmental movement to shut down the United States. We cannot shut down the lives of many Americans by going extreme on the environment.”

George Bush at UNCED, quoted in the Guardian, 1 June 1992 – 

This idea of the US “way of life” as “non-negotiable, or “sacred” has legs. Nine years later George H.W. Bush’s son, “Dubya” had become President after being selected by the U.S. Supreme Court. At a May 2001 press conference his spokesperson Ari Fleischer had the following exchange:

 Q    Is one of the problems with this, and the entire energy field, American lifestyles?  Does the President believe that, given the amount of energy Americans consume per capita, how much it exceeds any other citizen in any other country in the world, does the President believe we need to correct our lifestyles to address the energy problem?

  MR. FLEISCHER:  That’s a big no.  The President believes that it’s an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life.  The American way of life is a blessed one. 

Why this matters. 

What is sacred is beyond discussion. It’s a classic “de-agendaising” technique, where if you push the issue, you cast yourself into the outer darkness.

What happened next?

The USA government ratified the UNFCCC at the Rio Earth Summit, and has spent the last 30 years rendering it meaningless, and basically doing the bidding of various fossil fuel lobbies (yes, it is more complicated than that, but not MUCH more complicated).

See also my piece in The Conversation about George HW Bush.