Why is bush an a.hole and does nothing about global warming???

Question

has he tried to do anything at all about it?????

Answer 1

why should he do anything? it is not in his area of responsibilities. that would be up to congress to pass laws concerning anything. all Bush can do is support the bill and sign it into law or hopefully veto it if it's a bad law which it will be.

Answer 2

research recently signed environmental laws.

specifically concerning mandatory 35 mpg cars.

making incandescent light bulbs illegal.

the hydrogen fuel initiative & many other laws. your life will be changed significantly in the near future by laws passed by the current president.

catch up on yahoo news occasionally so you will have some idea of whats going on around you, instead off just day dreaming.

Answer 3

If it were real,then I think he'd do something,I remember the ice age coming on the first earth day,cant they get anything right?

Answer 4

Wow, Ben O took the words out of my mouth.  Bush's only problem regarding global warming is that he is too conciliatory to the socialists.  They need to be fought at every turn and global warming alarmism is only one front.

Answer 5

~~~~

Global warming may be cured at what cost?  Your dem congress makes the laws now and they don't do much but expell a lot of co2.

Answer 6

because he is too busy beating around the bush

Answer 7

Can't answer that too easily.... But he won't be president much longer,, so Who to Blame Next?

Answer 8

He is doing exactly what Cheney says to do!  Together they are overseeing the most massive redistribution of wealth the world has ever seen.  Funny thing though.  The middle class STILL doesn't get it!

Answer 9

No nothing besides talking

Answer 10

u r so silly with your small minded little question...like any of this really matters...bush is a blink in history that really doesnt matter....the earth, universe will bounce back and we (humanity) will self destruct.....get a grip on the BIG picture

Answer 11

Because he and the government are too busy pandering to the terrorists by giving them special visas and protecting them so that when they break the law, the one that reports them goes to jail.

Answer 12

Because he is responsible for the welfare of your country, unlike the naive socalists who have blind faith in AGW.  Your last president wasn't any different and the next one won't be any different.

Answer 13

What do you recommend that George Bush do about Global Warming?

If you have read the IPCC reports you will know that in order to stop the man made component of Global Warming we must reduce carbon dioxide emissions world wide to less than one tenth of what they are today.

How would you enforce something like that world wide?

What would it take to accomplish a reduction of that size?

You would have to ban the use of all fossil fuels world wide.

That means that you have to ban the use of all coal, oil, and natural gas world wide.

If oil exports alone from the Middle East were disrupted that would be considered a crisis.

Yet stopping all oil exports from The Middle East is only the beginning of what you must do to achieve the necessary reductions in world wide carbon dioxide emissions.

I agree that we must do something to stop the Man Made component of Global Warming.

The best place to start would be a blockade of The Middle East to prevent the export of any oil from that region. That would reduce the world supply of oil and force the price of oil up dramatically.

The dramatic increase in the price of oil would force people to make significant cuts in their use of oil.

Even then that would only be a start. We would still have to cut fossil fuel use much more drastically if we are to have any chance of stopping the man made component of Global Warming.

However if George Bush were to order a blockade of all oil exports from the Middle East there would be an enormous amount of protest and outrage from virtually every country in the world.

Essentially the problem with stopping Global Warming is that the reductions in oil use and the use of all other fossil fuels is so large that achieving agreement world wide how to make the necessary reductions in fossil fuel usage is an enormous challenge.

  

:

Answer 14

Because he makes a lot of money off of gas. Wait and see how they drop when someone else is in office. As long as we don't get that douche of a jerk John McCain. Obama or Hilary, and the prices will drop like a bowling ball off the Empire State Building.

Answer 15

I just finished a paper on this very same subject and what I found was disturbing. Here is a copy of my paper and you can judge for yourself why the Bush Administration has elected not to do anything about global warming.

Is America Downplaying The Threats From Global Warming?        

With the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina behind us, many people believe that the Earth is only going to get warmer unless we lessen our dependency on fossil fuels. With many coastal cities, island nations, and entire ecosystems at threat many people believe that the American government is downplaying this serious threat to society just to benefit their wallets. However, does downplaying global warming actually save the American government money, or does it

cost it more in the long run due to climate change?

For decades, the American government has been debating the complexity of climate change but has routinely failed to come together and agree on the solution to global warming. Despite have enough data that links increased human activity to global warming and increasing strong hurricanes, President Bush routinely stated “Climate change data are incomplete” (Consensus, para. 3). President Bush in September 2001 acknowledges “That global warming is occurring but doubts that human activity is the cause” (Consensus, para.4). However, as politicians argue over this “incomplete data”, millions of people are at risk of dying from famine due to the increasing frequency of severe droughts that global warming has caused. It appears to me that the data is very much complete but President Bush just refuses to accept partial blame for the ecological damage that global warming has caused.

The months prior to the Kyoto Protocol taking effect, which curb the amount of carbon dioxide being poured into the atmosphere, the Bush administration was working hard to keep an eight-nation report on global warming from being released to the American Public. President Bush argued that “The Arctic Council, which has been examining the Arctic climate for years, lacks evidence” (Wants, para.1) that global warming exists. However, studies indicated that not only was the Arctic Regions warming at a much faster rate than the rest of the world but that many civilizations and entire species that depended on the sea ice for survival were in threat of disappearing forever. This warming that is taking place in the Arctic Regions was occurring just as quick in the Antarctic Regions. In 2005, an iceberg the size of California fell into the sea. Just last month “570 square kilometers of ice from the Wilkins Ice Shelf fell into the sea putting the entire ice shelf at risk (Effects, para. 3). President Bush believes that there is absolutely no evidence of global warming but icebergs the size of California breaking off the Antarctic Icecap and the disappearance of entire island chains in the South Pacific indicate to me a whole different story.

We might see the rising sea levels occurring with each passing hurricane but what we do not see as easy is the shifting tree lines. “Over the past century trees has shifted 100 ft upslope” (Flora, para. 2). Many of the trees in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range that are not dying back due to extreme heat and drought are dying back due to fierce insect attacks. As these forests dye off so does the forest animals that depend on these trees for food and shelter. Scientists in Costa Rica had found “That two-thirds off 110 species of the country’s frogs have vanished” (Fauna, para. 4). The most obvious evidence of a species in peril due to global warming is the polar bear. Hundreds of polar bears turn up dead every summer due to the bears falling through the thinning ice. The mass dyings that is occurring worldwide is scientific evidence for me. However, these mass dyings do not directly affect the rich so why should President Bush take a step to control global warming.

Since taking into effect on February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol’s main goal is to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide. As of November, 2007, over 170 countries have signed and agreed to the Kyoto Protocol. However, the United States refuses to agree to the terms of the Kyoto Protocol. According to President Bush “The Kyoto Protocol will put an undue strain on the economy” (United States, para. 4). What is more damaging to the economy? The United States agreeing to the terms of the Kyoto Protocol and reducing the about of carbon dioxide that we produce, or the raise of food prices that is felt every time consumers go grocery shopping and this sharp increase of prices is the result of severe droughts that is brought on by global warming. If I had to pick between reducing the greenhouse-gas emissions and keeping grocery prices down, or keeping policies as they are by allowing greenhouse-gases continue to skyrocket along with grocery prices I pick reducing greenhouse-gas emissions because paying $10.00 for a gallon of milk is not high on my "Want to do" list.

While the United States Government refuses to acknowledge, the Kyoto Protocol many large cities and several states participate in the Kyoto Protocol. As of December, 2007, 740 US cities and 12 states agree to reduce greenhouse gases in accordance to the Kyoto Protocol. Some states, such as the State of California, has taken an extra step of developing their own plans to combat global warming. In August, 2006, the State of California created the Global Warming Solutions Act which “Reduces the state’s greenhouse-gas emissions by 25% by the year 2020” (Local governments, para. 2). The target emissions reduction is around 5%. However, despite the fact there are 740 cities and 12 states that agree to the Kyoto Protocol which represent over 76 million Americans, greenhouse emissions has risen over 21% over the past 15 years. With California’s ever growing, and changing economy, this just proves that a government can set a goal to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions without doing any harm to the economy. However, I cannot expect a president who has close ties to the U.S. Oil Industry understand the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. While politicians argue between themselves whether or not the Kyoto Protocol should even be implemented, economists have been working hard “Analyzing the overall benefits of the Kyoto Protocol through cost-benefit analysis” (Cost-benefit, para. 1). Many government auditors believe that “Observing the Kyoto Protocol is more expensive than not observing the

Kyoto Protocol” (Cost-benefit, para. 1). The government claims that the Kyoto Protocol is a failure that could drop the Gross Domestic Product by up to twenty percent which could bring on a severe recession. However, a study conducted by Nature Magazine reveals a totally different outcome. This study indicates that, with the exception of a few remote areas, the overall costs would instead drop. After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated the Gulf Coast back in 2005, gas prices skyrocketed across the entire country. These raising gas prices translate to higher costs of transporting goods. Higher shipping costs translate to higher prices at the grocery store and higher prices at the grocery store means less money for the average American to spend else. So it appears to me that by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions would not only save Americans untold billions of dollars in higher fuel and food costs, but would also save America untold billions of dollars that would otherwise be spent having to rebuild a major coastal city, such as New York

City, because it got hit by a land falling Katrina-size hurricane. I can't expect a president who does not even know what the price of a gallon of gasoline is to have the knowledge of knowing what it is like having to choice between grocery money and gas money.

The evidence that I pointed out proves that not only does President Bush, his administartion, and his corporate backers refuse to accept the fact that global warming is currently taking place and that the rise in greenhouse-gas emissions can lead to warmer global temperatures but that President Bush and his administartion only cares about themself and no one else. However, I believe that global warming does not have to take place if Americans were to take it upon themselves to recycle and turn off lights when leaving the room for any length of time, regardless whether or not the government believes that global warming is even taking place.

Answer 16

I am not a fan of Bush but i will take his side on this.  Why should he be wasting time and our tax dollars to end this change in solar activety that we call "GLobal Warming"

Answer 17

I think it is because he is not a very well educated man. As a child he most have been pretty lonely and he doesn't do many things about Global Warming because he is very conservative, with a narrow mind.

Just one person's opinion....

Answer 18

He's trying not to interfere with the arrival of the Rapture.

Answer 19

Because he's an elected official doing what those who voted for him expect of him.  If he could run again, I'd vote for him (just to watch the libs' heads explode).

Answer 20

Because he is a special interest serving politician, just like the rest of them.

Answer 21

I'm not sure. I think he's too wrapped up in that stupid war of his. Maybe the next president will focus on it for a while, and hopefully end the war.