Climate Action Report 2002(NYT's Bush's U-Turn report)

US. EPA Global Warming ^ | May 2002 | Various EPA studies

[JerseyHighlander]

The United States of America's Third National
Communication Under the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate Change

FINAL VERSION
Hard copies of this report will not be published for several months. Ordering information will be available on this page once copies are available.

(Per Federal Register Notice)

(Public Comments Submitted)

All files listed in the Table of Contents are available for viewing or download in Adobe Acrobat 5.0 format. The Acrobat Reader is available at no cost from Adobe Systems.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Zip file of pdf containing entire document (5.7M)

Upfront (247k pdf)  – Cover page and table of contents.

Chapter 1.  Introduction and Overview (197k pdf) – Summarizes the main elements of the report.

Chapter 2.  National Circumstances (450k pdf) – Presents a snapshot of the national characteristics of the United States that play a role in climate change, including the country's climate, geography, economy, demographic trends, energy production and consumption, and natural resources.

Chapter 3.  Greenhouse Gas Inventory (442k pdf) – Provides a broad overview of all U.S. greenhouse gas emission sources and sinks, introduces key concepts, and discusses the primary drivers for the growth in emissions.  All material in the chapter is drawn from the U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:  1990–1999. 

Chapter 4.  Policies and Measures (320k pdf) – Reviews national policies to limit emissions and enhance sinks of greenhouse gases undertaken since 1990.

Chapter 5.  Projections (322k pdf) – Quantifies the aggregate effects on greenhouse gas emissions of policies and measures implemented or planned from 1990 to 2020.

Chapter 6.  Vulnerability (1.5M pdf) – Addresses U.S. vulnerabilities to the adverse consequences of climate change and identifies the most promising adaptation measures being explored.

Chapter 7.  Financial Resources (426k pdf) – Reviews U.S. efforts with other countries to assist with mitigation and sequestration strategies, build human and institutional capacity to address climate change, and facilitate the commercial transfer of technology.

Chapter 8.  Research and Observation (296k pdf) – Discusses research efforts involving prediction of climate change, impacts and adaptation, and mitigation and new technologies.  This chapter also provides an overview of U.S. work on Global Climate Observing Systems.

Chapter 9.  Education, Training, and Awareness (269k pdf) – Addresses programs to educate and train students and citizens in areas related to climate change and reviews U.S. outreach activities to disseminate information about global climate change.

Appendix A:  Emission Trends. (1.9M pdf)

Appendix B:  Policies and Measures. (1.5M pdf)

Appendix C:  Selected Technology Transfer Activities and U.S. Direct Financial Contributions and Commercial Sales Related to Implementation of the UNFCCC. (4.4M pdf)

Appendix D:  Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. (264k pdf)

Appendix E:  Bibliography. (197k pdf)

http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/nwinsite.html
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/actions/national/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/index.html

[Lancey Howard]

Thank you for your efforts on this.
The other thread, which was based on the phoney, sensational Drudge headline, which in turn was based on a story to be published in the Gray Old Whore, got so polluted with pathetic "I'll-never-vote-for-Bush-again" morons that many of the legitimate posters missed the part where Drudge was thoroughly debunked. Hats off to Nick Danger for that.

By the way, I never saw a thread get "locked" by a moderator before. Is this done when the premise of a thread is phoney, like with the "Bush U-turn" thread?

[Lancey Howard]

Did you notice how the posts from this "Brian_Baldwin" seem so.... frantic? This guy could make a cup of coffee nervous. It is very easy to pick up the foul stench of a bitter, humorless liberal, and his posts are fuming with it.
Ignore him and he will eventually go away.

Regards,
LH

[My Identity]

Kyoto Paradox I:
Climate is an extremely complex, chaotic, coupled, non-linear, time-dependent system
with massive, external, naturally-occuring inputs and wide variability in measurables.
Therefore,
To say we can control it by tweaking a small set of factors is ridiculous on its face.

Kyoto Paradox II:
Climate is an extremely complex, chaotic, coupled, non-linear, time-dependent system
with massive, external, naturally-occuring inputs and wide variability in measurables.
Therefore,
You can no more successfully predict the outcome of doing something than you can of
not doing something. In other words, the impact of trying to "fix" a climate problem
is as unpredictable as the impact of ignoring it.

[rockfish59]

My nephew has a ski boat with a 455 Olds in it!
HOO-RAH!!!
Algore should take a ride with him!

[B. A. Conservative]

This link may be old and irrelevant or it may be current and already posted. But it appears to be the Bush administrations plan to limit global warming. Thank God Christy Todd Whitman is in charge of EPA and that the era of "big government" is over. Finally the Republicans are in control and we no longer have to worry about government mucking up our lives.

Click here for a different approach.

[B. A. Conservative]

"..during the next Democratic administration, 6, 10, or 14 years from now?"

The odds are pretty high that there won't be any US administration (Democrat, Republican or otherwise) 14 years from now. The unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security exceed the politically possible ajustments, not to mention what is going to happen as the Republicans continue to move left.

Click here for a different approach.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am going to begin turning my wealth into digital currencies that are portable. I hope some one knowledgable will start a thread on alternatives to dollars and techniques on wealth keeping. This one seems interesting.

[B. A. Conservative]

My sentiments exactly.

[NMC EXP]

it does not propose any major shift in the administration's policy on greenhouse gases.

The policy of the bush administration is that human induced global warming is a fact.

I wonder how many times this will get over looked.

Not by me. Human caused global warming is a flat out lie invented by the eco-freak/watermelon NGO's and fostered by the UN as a scheme to redistribute wealth globally.

If bush had a pair he would tell the UN and it's minions to shove Agenda 21 and the "framework" climate change treaty.

Instead, he will take the mushy middle approach and give the NGO's/UN part of what they want at the expense of all Americans to buy a few soccer mom votes.

Regards

J.R.

[Wonder Warthog]

Bump for later perusal and comment.

[Tuor]

Of course, teh media (and Democrats) will say: "You are expressing dire predictions and won't do anything about it?" The EPA better have explanations already for this one.

Yep. This will provide ammunition to the Dems and, if and when they eventually get back the Presidency, they will use this to justify further government intrusions. The Bush Administration, via the EPA, just gave the Dems a big stick.

Tuor

[alnick]

I mean, why would anyone check out the Drudge Report when they can go to the Bushies website (www.prayforbush.com) and look at clap-snaps of Bush and Laura?

Why would you leap to conclusions and go off the deep end with your reactionary BS rather than READ THE REPORT? But that would be no fun, would it? It's much more fun to rely on Drudge and the NYT because their spin supports your agenda.

[rintense]

Oh my Lord! That must be one heck of a ride!

[Tex-Con-Man]

Sunday nights without X-files...

[finnman69]

Brian Baldwin. I did not know the Baldwin brothers had another ill informed quick to run off at the mouth brother. But will you put your money where your mouth is and leave the US if Bush is re-elected?

[Always Right]

"While current analyses are unable to predict with confidence the timing, magnitude, or regional distribution of climate change, the best scientific information indicates that if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, changes are likely to occur.'

I am 100% certain that changes will occur even if greenhouse gas concentrations stay exactly the same.

[Lazamataz]

But now I've been to the EPA site and read the introduction. No, this is no Clinton holdover. Nor is it what the New York Times says it is. This report has been totally re-worked by Bush's people. Drudge's characterization of it, and the New York Times' as well -- if he is quoting them accurately -- is way off base.

Maybe I am way behind the curve here, but this is the first time that Drudge has pretty much lied (or quoted a lying source). I'm aware he sensationalizes for his Sunday show, but I wasn't aware he'd taken to lying.

[FreeTheHostages]

Glad to meet you!! Some times I felt so alone on this topic.

The question of whether human activity is primarily responsible for global warming is a science question, not a political question. The question about what to do about is is a political question. It's the latter that conservatives should get excited about.

I think this report is fine and no big deal. The science is pretty clear now, no sense turning environmental activitists into presicent Galileo-like saints. If the sciene says this, then so be it.

But the Bush administration, while *sagely* in my view not bucking science (sheesh, the only people who don't think CO2 has a big role now are the auto & gas companies), wisely says let's let the free market and not Kyoto help us with the solution. America's the biggest, bestest, baddest at this: our economy will have better cheaper faster solutions long before Kyoto makes a wit of difference in our atmosphere.

The scientific question should not be a conservative touchstone issue like abortion. Because unlike abortion, we could be proven wrong scientifically. We should focus on the policy response and not fight science.

I'm also pragmatic: if this makes it more likely we can take back the Senate, I say go for it.

[RAT Patrol]

From the Bush-hating chorus: FACTS....FACTS.....WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING FACTS! Well, will you look at that! It's the SAME chorus being sung by the Bush Worshipers. At least we all have something in common.

[rintense]

We're Bush bots, not Bush Worshipers. :-p

[Amelia]

The question of whether human activity is primarily responsible for global warming is a science question, not a political question. The question about what to do about is is a political question. It's the latter that conservatives should get excited about.

I agree with you totally!!

I do remember reading this article a few months ago, suggesting that perhaps there wasn't as much evidence for global warming as originally thought......