Global Warmings

Bush got up in front of the UN today an, with as straight a face as he could suffer, offered to lead the world in the battle against global warming. His weapons of choice? Voluntary emissions reductions and a global fund to finance clean energy in developing countries.

Where to begin? At some point this administration just completely gave up being logical. It's like they decided consciously that they would rather piss the world off than be right about anything.

1. President Bush has an MBA from Harvard Business School. Perhaps he can tell us what energy company would stop burning coal upon the President's announcement of voluntary emissions reductions.

But okay, that's obvious. What about his proposed fund?

2. The fund is also voluntary. What countries will want to give money to this American creation, when we won't so much as talk about mandatory cuts? I'm guessing no one. We have absolutely no political capital at the UN.

3. Most emissions in the coming years will be rising up from the U.S. and China. Next come Russia and the EU. Together those four make up about 60% of current emissions. China is now the largest emitter of GHG in the world, and it's a developing nation. Are we expecting about half of this fund to go to China, then? For a country growing so fast, do we expect this chump change to actually help windmills supplant fossil fuels rather than (at best) complement them? China is building a coal-fired power plant every week -- they won't blanch at this pissant fund.

4. Bush doesn't want to set mandatory limits. Let's not be hasty, right? Wouldn't want to sacrifice our economy now, let's do this as painlessly as possible.

This argument about the economy has always been complete bullshit. Green energy isn't something hippies sell out of trucks in their front yards. Green energy is sold by corporations, and even without looking to the externalities, these corporations have the potential to be just as important a piece of our economy as oil and gas is today.

But it's more expensive!

Green energy is more expensive than conventional energy for two reasons: 1) it hasn't received decades of subsidies, as Big Oil has; and 2) it's new. Once the infrastructure and technology is in place, does anyone really doubt that solar panels transmitting energy from a rooftop will be less expensive than shipping natural gas from all over the world? Green energy is inherently local and thus inherently more efficient than oil and gas in the long run.

5. Only developing nations would get funding, right? Nice how that means the current energy structure in the U.S. wouldn't have to change. Bush's buddies down in Texas wouldn't lose a dime. You know, every time Bush is cautious, the oil and gas industry benefits. And every time he's stubborn and rash, the oil and gas industry benefits. They're just lucky, I guess.

The rest of the UN knows all of these things. They're ineffective, but they're not dumb. They sit in their assigned seats at the General Assembly and watch our President give a speech about a half-assed, can't-do, bullshit non-plan and they think to themselves, "This guy is just not worth listening to anymore." I couldn't agree more.