EPA Chief Ignored

Whitman to Bush: Global Warming Is Serious Issue

In a private memo to President Bush, EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman urged him to recognize global warming as a serious international issue -- just days before the president reneged on his campaign pledge to cut carbon dioxide emissions at the nation's power plants. The full text of the memo follows:

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

March 6, 2001

THE ADMINISTRATOR

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT

FROM: CHRISTIE WHITMAN

SUBJECT: G-8 MEETING, TRIESTE

Having just returned from Italy and the G-8 meeting I thought I would pass on a few observations of the International Community and global climate change.

First: This was a precursor to two meetings to which you and other heads of state will be invited: Bonn in July and Johannesburg in 2002. It is safe to assume that there will be head of state participation in at least one if not both meetings.

Second: The World Community (EU; Umbrella group made up of US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Norway, Iceland, Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan (as an observer); and the G-77 or developing countries) are all convinced of the seriousness of this issues and the need to act now.

Third: The Kyoto Protocol is the only game in town in their eyes. There is a real fear in the international community that if the US is not willing to discuss the issue within the framework of Kyoto the whole thing will fall apart. They feel that they can move ahead toward their goals on their own, but would need the U.S. to really get things done.

Fourth: For the first time the world's religious communities have started to engage in the issue. Their solutions vary widely, but the fervor of the focus was clear. Of course this has been an issue for the NGOs for awhile.

As you can see from the attached highlighted clips, I had varied success in buying us time to fully engage in these discussions. From a political perspective I believe that we are in a position to build some good will while not endorsing the specifics of Kyoto. Expectations are low for this Administration.

I would strongly recommend that you continue to recognize that global warming is a real, and serious issues.

While not specifically endorsing the targets called for in Kyoto, you could indicate that you are exploring how to reduce U.S. Greenhouse gas emissions internally and will continue to do so no matter what else transpires.

Mr. President, this is a credibility issue (global warming) for the U.S. in the international Community. It is also an issue that is resonating here, at home. We need to appear engaged and shift the discussion from the focus on the "K" word to action, but we have to build some boneifides first.

We did win some issues at this meeting i.e., recognizing cost, promoting children's health, and fending off some last minute end runs by the Germans and Japanese.

I'm available to discuss this further if you want.

© 2001 The Washington Post Company

-- (Dict@tor.rulez), March 27, 2001

Answers

October 2000...

"I'm really strongly committed to clean water and clean air and cleaning up the new kinds of challenges, like global warming."

Dumbya

-- yeah right (lyin@fuckin.bastard), March 27, 2001.

The gem of the memo:

"I believe that we are in a position to build some good will while not endorsing the specifics of Kyoto. Expectations are low for this Administration."

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 27, 2001.

In a private memo to President Bush,...

I'm curious how this "private" memo managed to get in the hands of the Washington Post. Somebody's head is going to be on the chopping block over that, I imagine. (And deservedly so in my opinion.)

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), March 27, 2001.

Despite this memo being headed "Global Warming is a Serious Issue." there is absolutely nothing in here about global warming. It is all to do with the how other nations perceive global warming and the political aspects.

Try actually reading the memo.

First: This was a precursor to two meetings to which you and other heads of state will be invited: Bonn in July and Johannesburg in 2002. It is safe to assume that there will be head of state participation in at least one if not both meetings. This section has to do with meeting Heads of State, where is the mention of Global Warming?

Second: The World Community (EU; Umbrella group made up of US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Norway, Iceland, Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan (as an observer); and the G-77 or developing countries) are all convinced of the seriousness of this issues and the need to act now. This section claims that the World Community is concerned about the issue, but does not claim that there is an issue. The international scientific community certainly don't believe its much of an issue. Read what Dr Lindzen (One of the authors of the IPCC report) has to say.

`Children's Exercise' (8 Mar 2001)

This is how MIT 's Professor of Meteorology, Dr Richard Lindzen describes the latest UN-IPCC report, adding that the Kyoto Treaty it promotes "is absurd".

In a recent interview with James Glassman, Dr. Lindzen said that the latest report of the UN-IPCC (that he helped author), "was very much a children's exercise of what might possibly happen" prepared by a "peculiar group" with "no technical competence."

He adds, "We've already signed on to the framework convention in 1990 saying that we'll always want the Kyoto-type process going on. So one has to think through a variety of decisions and get out of this loop."

In the interview, Lindzen said that there is very little consensus on global warming in the scientific community, a fact reflected in the U.N. report. "The very structure of the report acknowledges that there are hundreds of different specialties that now call themselves climate, which didn't 10 years ago. And they all want a piece of the action. That itself is a problem."

Linzden also discussed a new study out this month that he conducted with NASA scientists, which shows that cirrus clouds over the tropics "act as an effective thermostat." He added, "Our personal feeling is that you're not going to see due to man's activities...much more than a degree and probably a lot less by 2100."

Third: The Kyoto Protocol is the only game in town in their eyes. There is a real fear in the international community that if the US is not willing to discuss the issue within the framework of Kyoto the whole thing will fall apart. They feel that they can move ahead toward their goals on their own, but would need the U.S. to really get things done. So it is actually the Kyoto Protocol that is the important issue, and nothing to do with whether or not Global Warming exists.

Fourth: For the first time the world's religious communities have started to engage in the issue. Their solutions vary widely, but the fervor of the focus was clear. Of course this has been an issue for the NGOs for awhile. And here is the real crux of the matter, Religion!

So nowhere in this memo is global warming actually discussed. It does not even touch on whether or not there is warming, nor on the possible effects if warming does exist. Unfortunately this is the same way that many nations are treating it. And if enough people say that GW (or Y2K or chemtrails or .....) will lead to TEOTWAWKI then they will be believed.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), March 27, 2001.

LOL, you're funny Malcolm. I saw a Bill Moyer special on PBS last night called "Trade Secrets". It reminded me of you, the way all the corporate shills tried to cover up all the shit they were doing that was killing innocent people. You should check it out, although unless you can buy a conscience somewhere, I doubt you will understand it.

-- (global warming "won't exist" @ until. millions die), March 27, 2001.

"won't exist", Your reply appears to be moving away from a factual argument and more towards a personal one. Sorry, but I am not going to play that game as regulars here already know my background and that if there is anything untoward then I will be the first to pronounce it. If you have any evidence of global warming then please provide it.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), March 27, 2001.

Notice how Malcomtent avoids defending the "science" employed by the corporations exposed in the "Trade Secrets" program.

-- Charles Shultz (peanuts@gallery.com), March 27, 2001.

Charles Shultz, I have not seen the "Trade Secrets" program to which you refer, therefore I cannot comment on anything that may have come out of it. If the program needs defending you will have to find someone who saw it to take up that task.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), March 27, 2001.

Howdy Malcolm:

Long time no see. Yeah, we old timers tend to ignore comments from both the right and the left when they provide no data. Your analysis of the supposed note was correct in my view.

I am still waiting on the data concerning global warming. It is clear that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has increased. No question about that.

Is this causing climate change? Haven't seen any hard data yet so I don't know. I have been to two conferences on the subject in the last year and there is no agreement on that one. Of course, the stuff being quoted is political riffraff and has nothing to do with the scientific question.

In reality, it makes no difference. If human produced carbon dioxide is changing the climate, there is little that we can do but adapt. Turning off all fossil fuel use know would have an effect in 2 or 3 centuries [or so the data I saw demonstrated]. Whatever the situation, we just must learn to adapt; as we always have.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 27, 2001.

"Turning off all fossil fuel use know would have an effect in 2 or 3 centuries [or so the data I saw demonstrated]."

That's a load of crap if I've ever seen one. Let's see the data.

-- (mr@big.shot), March 28, 2001.

Hi Z,

I am still a lurker here even if I don't post very often. I usually check in a few times each week to see if there is anything of interest. Unfortunately most posts these days are religious ones which aren't really open to debate.

You are quite correct when you say that CO2 has definitely increased of the last few years. That is both measurable and explainable. But ghiven that this increase has occured, where is the associated global warming?

mr@big.shot seemed to doubt your statement "Turning off all fossil fuel use know would have an effect in 2 or 3 centuries [or so the data I saw demonstrated]."

So for mr@big.shot here's the proof: CO2 increases by 6% pa over natural sources due to unatural influences (read for this "due to man"). CO2 makes up 3.3% of all so called greenhouse gasses, therefore man has had a direct effect on greenhouse gasses of 0.06*0.033 = 0.00198 or 0.19%. The rate of carbon take up by biological sources (forests) has a half life of 60 years. Thus, if man's CO2 emmisions were to stop completely and immediately then the effect would be reduced by 50% ofter 60 years, down to 25% after 120 years, and would not reach the 7% mark untill 240 years. For the complete scientific analysis with the most accurate data see this paper by Dr Jarl Ahlbeck.

From the above mentioned paper is the statement If all emissions are stopped today, Equation (10) shows that the atmospheric concentration would start to sink exponentially towards 275.5 ppm, reaching 282 ppm after 100 years.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), March 28, 2001.

Malcolm,

Remember that thread where we were discussing whether the water in Lake Nassar had to eventually flow into the Mediterranean Sea? I've looked for it, but can't find it -- do you recall the title or original subject of the thread?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 28, 2001.

Malcolm and Z are both employed within the coal-powered public utilities industry. It shouldn't come as a suprise that they are motivated to supply disinformation and propaganda regarding the facts on global warming. Thank God for the rest of us they are among a minority.

-- (global warming must be stopped @ or Earth. will perish), March 29, 2001.

No Spam, I do remember that thread you mention, but I cannot recall what it was headed. Flint also contributed to it so he may have a reference.

-- (global warming must be stopped @ or Earth. will perish), I am not employed within the coal-powered public utilities industry. I am in the electricity industry in New Zealand, a hydro based industry, not coal fired as you claim. As hydro requires accurate climate forecasts I am right at the forefront of climatology and hydrology, and can therefore speak with some authority on this subject.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), March 29, 2001.

"I am right at the forefront of climatology and hydrology, and can therefore speak with some authority on this subject."

Malcolmtent,

You missed another good PBS show on this subject. Got news for you pal, you may think you are an authority, but the MAJORITY of authorities agree that global warming is real, it is being accelerated by anthropogenic activity, and if we don't stop it we're fucked.

-- (authority@my.ass), March 29, 2001.

the MAJORITY of authorities agree that global warming is real do they? Can you provide a list of those that agree and those that do not agree to back up your assertion? This claim has been repeated many times but never with any data to back it up.

Look at how The Hague conference failed becuase of lack of agreement. Look at the article I provided ealier by one of the authors of the IPCC Report. Then have a look at the actual data provided by the NOAA Satellites.

Now would you care to repeat your claim?

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), March 29, 2001.

The Hague conference failed because of major league a-holes like you and George Bush, who put profit before all else. SCIENTISTS know what is happening, not businessmen and politicians. Scientists overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real. Go play games with someone else, I'm never going to buy into the crap coming out of your mouth.

-- (malcolmtent@spreading.lies), March 29, 2001.

Scientists overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real.

This is simply not true. The conventional wisdom of greenies says it is true, but it is not. There is much disagreement in the scientific community about this topic. And I don't count the IPCC as part of the scientific community.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 29, 2001.

Aswan dam may trigger ice age, say scientists ----------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright 1997 Nando.net Copyright 1997 Agence France-Presse

LONDON (July 24, 1997 02:21 a.m. EDT) - Egypt's Aswan Dam could cause such oceanic and climatic changes that they trigger a new ice age, according to reports Thursday. Bob Johnson, of the University of Minnesota in the United States, said in the "New Scientist" magazine that his theory, which he described as "pretty far out ... but quite serious", has been backed by researchers at Colorado and Quebec universities. Johnson said that as the dam, built in 1968, stops fresh water entering the Mediterranean, the sea becomes saltier. The more saltier the water, the heavier it gets, and the bigger the flows from the sea through the Straits of Gibraltar into the Atlantic. These extra flows, claimed Johnson, move north, and meet the warm Gulf Stream, pushing more of the Gulf Stream into the Labrador Stream, and causing more snowfalls in the Arctic, and so a huge expansion of ice sheets. Johnson proposed a barrier built across the Straits of Gibraltar to counteract the extra flows.

Copyright 1997 Nando.net -

http://www.ee/lists/infoterra/1997/07/0042.html

-- Cave Man (caves@are.us), March 29, 2001.

"SCIENTISTS know what is happening For once I agree with you. See the article I posted on the cooling thread, it is from a scientist.

-- (taylorm@es.co.nz), March 30, 2001.