Ultimate Cynicism: The Political Exploitation of a Tragedy

[MavKikiNYC]

NY Times Editorial
Waiting for a Leader

Published: September 1, 2005

George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, especially given the level of national distress and the need for words of consolation and wisdom. In what seems to be a ritual in this administration, the president appeared a day later than he was needed. He then read an address of a quality more appropriate for an Arbor Day celebration: a long laundry list of pounds of ice, generators and blankets delivered to the stricken Gulf Coast. He advised the public that anybody who wanted to help should send cash, grinned, and promised that everything would work out in the end.

We will, of course, endure, and the city of New Orleans must come back. But looking at the pictures on television yesterday of a place abandoned to the forces of flood, fire and looting, it was hard not to wonder exactly how that is going to come to pass. Right now, hundreds of thousands of American refugees need our national concern and care. Thousands of people still need to be rescued from imminent peril. Public health threats must be controlled in New Orleans and throughout southern Mississippi. Drivers must be given confidence that gasoline will be available, and profiteering must be brought under control at a moment when television has been showing long lines at some pumps and spot prices approaching $4 a gallon have been reported.

Sacrifices may be necessary to make sure that all these things happen in an orderly, efficient way. But this administration has never been one to counsel sacrifice. And nothing about the president's demeanor yesterday - which seemed casual to the point of carelessness - suggested that he understood the depth of the current crisis.

While our attention must now be on the Gulf Coast's most immediate needs, the nation will soon ask why New Orleans's levees remained so inadequate. Publications from the local newspaper to National Geographic have fulminated about the bad state of flood protection in this beloved city, which is below sea level. Why were developers permitted to destroy wetlands and barrier islands that could have held back the hurricane's surge? Why was Congress, before it wandered off to vacation, engaged in slashing the budget for correcting some of the gaping holes in the area's flood protection?

It would be some comfort to think that, as Mr. Bush cheerily announced, America "will be a stronger place" for enduring this crisis. Complacency will no longer suffice, especially if experts are right in warning that global warming may increase the intensity of future hurricanes. But since this administration won't acknowledge that global warming exists, the chances of leadership seem minimal.

[MavKikiNYC]

It's pieces of shit like this that make me the angriest. This ridiculous exploitation of a natural disaster and the ensuing human tragedy to try to inflict political damage.

Cotton candy rhetoric--full of simplistic statements of the obvious, half-baked accusatons, and foolish shoulda-couldas.

I loathe the NYTimes. I do not think I would lift a finger to stop the destruction of its offices, or to prevent harm to the gutless "editors" who deal in this type of exploiation.

May its demise continue.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
NY Times Editorial
Waiting for a Leader

Published: September 1, 2005

George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, especially given the level of national distress and the need for words of consolation and wisdom. In what seems to be a ritual in this administration, the president appeared a day later than he was needed. He then read an address of a quality more appropriate for an Arbor Day celebration: a long laundry list of pounds of ice, generators and blankets delivered to the stricken Gulf Coast. He advised the public that anybody who wanted to help should send cash, grinned, and promised that everything would work out in the end.

We will, of course, endure, and the city of New Orleans must come back. But looking at the pictures on television yesterday of a place abandoned to the forces of flood, fire and looting, it was hard not to wonder exactly how that is going to come to pass. Right now, hundreds of thousands of American refugees need our national concern and care. Thousands of people still need to be rescued from imminent peril. Public health threats must be controlled in New Orleans and throughout southern Mississippi. Drivers must be given confidence that gasoline will be available, and profiteering must be brought under control at a moment when television has been showing long lines at some pumps and spot prices approaching $4 a gallon have been reported.

Sacrifices may be necessary to make sure that all these things happen in an orderly, efficient way. But this administration has never been one to counsel sacrifice. And nothing about the president's demeanor yesterday - which seemed casual to the point of carelessness - suggested that he understood the depth of the current crisis.

While our attention must now be on the Gulf Coast's most immediate needs, the nation will soon ask why New Orleans's levees remained so inadequate. Publications from the local newspaper to National Geographic have fulminated about the bad state of flood protection in this beloved city, which is below sea level. Why were developers permitted to destroy wetlands and barrier islands that could have held back the hurricane's surge? Why was Congress, before it wandered off to vacation, engaged in slashing the budget for correcting some of the gaping holes in the area's flood protection?

It would be some comfort to think that, as Mr. Bush cheerily announced, America "will be a stronger place" for enduring this crisis. Complacency will no longer suffice, especially if experts are right in warning that global warming may increase the intensity of future hurricanes. But since this administration won't acknowledge that global warming exists, the chances of leadership seem minimal.

It's incredibly sad that there are many who readily use this horrible tragedy in Louisianna, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida to promote their own political agendas instead of banding together to help those victims who still stand in desperate need. There will be more than enough time to play the blame game later, I think now all efforts should be directed towards helping the victims and the game of politically getting a leg up should be suspended until the victims of Katrina are safe and have the necessities of food, shelter, and clothing.

[reeds]

Great great write up..couldnt have written it any better myself!! Two thumbs up!!

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: reeds
Great great write up..couldnt have written it any better myself!! Two thumbs up!!

You know reeds...most of the time I just blow you off as silly but this one inspires me to tell you to go F*ck yourself.



I am VERY PROUD of OUR President.

[Mavdog]

I much prefer this example set by the legislature:

Congress Approves $10.5B in Katrina Aid By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
44 minutes ago

Congress approved a $10.5 billion down payment Friday to cover the immediate rescue and relief efforts for victims of Hurricane Katrina's sweep across the Gulf, amid complaints that the government's response has been inadequate.

The bill passed the House by voice vote after Senate approval late Thursday. It comes as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the government's front-line responder in natural disasters, is spending more than $500 million a day on Katrina.

An increasingly polarized atmosphere has defined Washington this year, but as in response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terror assaults, erstwhile political adversaries teamed up to ensure speedy passage of the aid legislation.

A skeleton crew of lawmakers was all that was needed to advance the bill; to hold recorded votes could have delayed it as lawmakers would have had to scramble back to Washington from their August vacation.

The new aid averts the possibility that money might run out before Congress reconvenes on Tuesday.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said the bill was only the first step toward a "comprehensive, long-term response to the Katrina disaster." He promised Congress would provide more humanitarian aid, combat gasoline price gouging, provide assistance to businesses and the unemployed, rebuild infrastructure and utility systems, and help local law enforcement.

"Make no mistake, this $10.5 billion is initial relief," DeLay said.

they went to work and they did what they do best- appropriated the money for the relief efforts.

This comment from the pres:

"I want to thank the Congress for acting as quickly as you did," Bush said of the $10.5 billion measure, which he was signing into law later Friday. "But I've got go to warn everybody that's just the beginning."

Good counsel on the long term need this relief is going to take. The pictures from the gulf coast are horribly remniscent of the SE asian tsunami.

Bush is there in Mississsippi today with a stop in NOLA. there have been some warm pictures of him with people who have been harmed by this tragedy.

first, the visit today is a big event which uses the backdrop for positive political gain, so in as much as you want to wait for the relief to be accomplished before any politics take root, it isn't going to happen and neither side of the argument will delay sending their message. media rules.

second, perhaps it was a desire by the editor to launch this quick, and he went too quick to hurl blame at the feet of bush. however, consider that it is just because of this type of reaction (as well as how the scenes there are portrayed) which is producing the quick response by the WH.

The bill combines $10 billion in new FEMA funds — enough to last just a few weeks — and $500 million for the Pentagon's role in the relief mission. The FEMA funds, among other uses, will finance food and emergency shelter, medical care, debris removal, generators and cash payments to hurricane victims. FEMA will also funnel funds to other federal agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers, responsible for repairing levees around New Orleans and pumping out the flood waters inundating the city.

Long-term costs were anyone's guess. For starters, it could be months before New Orleans is cleared of flood waters, and until then, it's impossible to determine long-term needs. Many areas have yet to receive visits from federal officials.

Frustration with the rescue effort — and the continued lack of help for many of the mostly poor and black victims in New Orleans — reached a boil as the Congressional Black Caucus blasted Bush's handling of the crisis.

"I'm ashamed of America. I'm ashamed of our government," said Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich. "I'm outraged by the lack of response by our federal government."

To help ease some of the economic pain from the storm, the Department of Labor announced Friday that it is providing an emergency grant of up to $50 million to create 10,000 temporary cleanup and recovery jobs for displaced workers in Mississippi.

"Workers in these temporary jobs will be involved in the provision of food, shelter and other services to fellow Mississippians," said Labor Secretary Elaine Chao.

Still, at least one prominent politician got off script Thursday — House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

Asked in an interview with the Daily Herald, a suburban Chicago paper, whether it makes sense to spend billions rebuilding a city that lies below sea level, a reference to New Orleans, Hastert replied, "I don't know. That doesn't make sense to me."

Hastert later issued a statement saying he was not "advocating that the city be abandoned or relocated," but he did not travel to Washington to preside over the debate.

hey, don't mess with those n'orleans boys dennis.....

[Drbio]

President Bush stated that the response effort is "not acceptable" and that it will improve.

YOUR President is doing great things.

[LRB]

Fortunately not all liberal democrats care more about advancing their political agendas than saving the lives of their fellow countrymen, unfortunately not all are like this. And yes there as a few Republicans who can meet that description as well.

Of course you can get positive political publicity from being seen touring the disaster scene and making anouncements of sending aid. So long as looking good is secondary in importance to getting the aid to those victims who need it, I don't give a rat's @$$ which political party gets to have positive political publicity. But which this juvenile sniping and blaming takes place to get a political leg up at the expense of slowing down aid and attempting to play on the fears of the nation in a crisis situation, that is just totally uncalled for. Sure there have been mistakes made by policticians on both sides of the isle in this situation. But now is not the time to stop and point the finger that should be working to bring aid to those in need.

A big part of the problem in the delay of aid is those who are delaying the process of getting aid while concentrating on blaming the opposition instead of seeking ways that they personally can help the situation. Fortunately most people are concentrating on getting aid to the people 1st. However with a disaster of such unprescedented size, it will take a while for the aid to fully get there. Some logistical problems will take a certain amount of time and no political sniping will hurry that up, but it could slow it down.

[reeds]

I wonder if the 200billion we spent on the war in Iraq would come in handy right about now? Hmmm..just a thought..but then again, it is much more important to take care of the evil Sadaam and the terrorist than to have a surplus of funds in case our own country suffers a tragedy....

[LRB]

Originally posted by: reeds
I wonder if the 200billion we spent on the war in Iraq would come in handy right about now? Hmmm..just a thought..but then again, it is much more important to take care of the evil Sadaam and the terrorist than to have a surplus of funds in case our own country suffers a tragedy....

Thanks Reeds for giving an example of the selfserving behavior of the political slimeballs I was referring to. I'm glad to see how you will exploit the death and suffering of your fellow countrymen even when their lives are still in the balance to promote your political agenda. We can only be thankful that you don't have any sort of position where you assistance was needed in getting aid to the victims, because I have a felling that it'd be cold day in hell before you'd even consider putting getting aid to them before you political agenda.

[Arne]

But it's just right, what Reeds says. 200 billions would come in handy at the moment. Why spend 200 millions for a war just like that and then "only" spend 10 billions for a catastrophe like what happens in New Orleans.

And here is something to think about for all these people who said France and Germany were "ungrateful", because they didn't join in to the Iraq war.





"Germany, France Offer U.S. Medical Aid, Equipment
Sept. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Germany and France, the two leading European opponents of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, have offered aid to the U.S. to help the survivors of Hurricane Katrina, which probably killed thousands of people in four Gulf coast states.

Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said Germany is ready to provide help including airlift capacities, vaccination, water purification, medical supplies and pumping services. The aid is available in the short term and can be brought to the U.S. on German air force and chartered planes, Schroeder said. The U.S. government has agreed to receive the help in principle, he said.

``The pictures that we see on television are hard to bear,'' Schroeder told reporters today at the Chancellery in Berlin. ``It is not only our historical duty because we've received unlimited help from the American people after the war, but it also goes without saying'' that Germany will try to help as much as it can.

France has 35 disaster relief workers in the Caribbean islands of Martinique and Guadeloupe ready to leave for the U.S. the minute they are asked, Denis Simonneau, deputy spokesman for the French Foreign Ministry, said at a press briefing today. A 60-strong disaster relief team in mainland France could be sent ``very quickly,'' he said.

Simonneau said France has offered 600 tents, 1000 camp beds, 60 generators, and three portable water treatment plants that are stockpiled in Martinique. In addition two planes, two naval ships and a hospital ship are standing ready in the Caribbean, he said.

French Experience

``We have lots of experience with hurricanes in Martinique and Guadeloupe,'' French ambassador to the U.S. Jean-David Levitte said at a press lunch in Paris yesterday. ``President (Jacques) Chirac has made it clear that France will provide whatever help is requested.''

Nathalie Loiseau, a spokeswoman at the French embassy in Washington, said France made its offer yesterday and is awaiting a response. ``We weren't expecting a response within hours,'' Loiseau said. ``There's an inter-agency committee that meets every day and they will examine the offers and decide which ones conform to what they need and what the U.S. have the means to accept.''

The disaster may be the biggest in the U.S. since the 1906 San Francisco earthquake when as many as 6,000 died. It may cost $50 billion, Standard & Poor's said, making Katrina the most expensive hurricane in U.S. history.

S.O.S.

Some 15,000 to 20,000 people are stranded without help around New Orleans, a city of 500,000 before the disaster struck. The city's mayor Ray Nagin issued a ``desperate S.O.S.,'' telling Cable News Network ``people are desperate and they are trying to find food and water.''

The U.S. Senate yesterday approved $10.5 billion in disaster relief and as many as 15,000 security officers are headed for the city, which has seen looting and rape as public order collapsed.

The hurricane wreaked havoc throughout Louisiana and Mississippi as well as Alabama and Western Florida. Television channels showed crowds at the New Orleans convention center, with people pleading for food, water and medicine."

[Arne]

And last but not least, America should start to take global warming seriously.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: reeds
Great great write up..couldnt have written it any better myself!! Two thumbs up!!

Indeed not, Reeds. You couldn't have.

Cotton candy rhetoric--full of simplistic statements of the obvious, half-baked accusatons, and foolish shoulda-couldas.

In brief, two feet up you and your whore of a mother's ass.

God bless.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: Arne
And last but not least, America should start to take global warming seriously.

Not even the NYTimes made this mistake, Arne.

THE OUTLOOK
Storms Vary With Cycles, Experts Say

By KENNETH CHANG
Published: August 30, 2005

Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming.

But that is not the case, scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent onslaught "is very much natural," said William M. Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season.

From 1970 to 1994, the Atlantic was relatively quiet, with no more than three major hurricanes in any year and none at all in three of those years. Cooler water in the North Atlantic strengthened wind shear, which tends to tear storms apart before they turn into hurricanes.

In 1995, hurricane patterns reverted to the active mode of the 1950's and 60's. From 1995 to 2003, 32 major hurricanes, with sustained winds of 111 miles per hour or greater, stormed across the Atlantic. It was chance, Dr. Gray said, that only three of them struck the United States at full strength.

Historically, the rate has been 1 in 3.

Then last year, three major hurricanes, half of the six that formed during the season, hit the United States. A fourth, Frances, weakened before striking Florida.

"We were very lucky in that eight-year period, and the luck just ran out," Dr. Gray said.

Global warming may eventually intensify hurricanes somewhat, though different climate models disagree.

In an article this month in the journal Nature, Kerry A. Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote that global warming might have already had some effect. The total power dissipated by tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic and North Pacific increased 70 to 80 percent in the last 30 years, he wrote.

But even that seemingly large jump is not what has been pushing the hurricanes of the last two years, Dr. Emanuel said, adding, "What we see in the Atlantic is mostly the natural swing."

[Arne]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

Indeed not, Reeds. You couldn't have.

Cotton candy rhetoric--full of simplistic statements of the obvious, half-baked accusatons, and foolish shoulda-couldas.

In brief, two feet up you and your whore of a mother's ass.

God bless.

Woah...don't be so polite...


Here's some information about this quoted Mr Gray...: "Gray served as a weather forecaster for the United States Air Force" I just don't believe this guy. But hey, it's the American way to downplay environmental issues like global warming.

Did you know that way before Katrina ever hit New Orleans the city was already losing an acre of wetland every 24 minutes?


Plus, here's another man's opinion...: (Wall Street Journal)

"Man-Made Mistakes
Increase Devastation
Of 'Natural' Disasters
September 2, 2005; Page B1

While storms such as Hurricane Katrina are sometimes called an act of God or a natural disaster, the devastation they leave behind is not. Some scientists believe even the storms themselves could be at least partly man-made.

As Theodore Steinberg argues, God is getting a bum rap. "This is an unnatural disaster if ever there was one, not an act of God," says Prof. Steinberg, an environmental historian at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. "If the potential for mass death and destruction from extreme weather existed anywhere in the U.S., it existed in New Orleans."

In his 2000 book "Acts of God: The Unnatural History of Natural Disaster in America," Prof. Steinberg documented how much of the toll from "natural" disasters, from the 1886 Charleston earthquake to 1990s hurricanes, has been exacerbated by human actions.

The temporary lull in hurricane activity in Florida, from 1969 to 1989, spurred a reckless building boom, for example, putting billions of dollars worth of condos and hotels within reach of storm surges, notes Roger Pielke Jr., of the University of Colorado, Boulder. The Great Miami Hurricane of 1926 would have caused an estimated $90 billion damage had it occurred in 2000, he calculated. It caused just over $1 billion, in today's dollars.

It isn't only hurricanes whose destructiveness has been increased by human actions. Tornadoes turn mobile homes into matchsticks (one of Prof. Steinberg's first jobs was at a New York brokerage firm, where he followed the trailer-home industry). From 1981 to 1997, he found, more than one-third of all deaths from tornadoes occurred among people living in mobile homes; federal regulations didn't require them to withstand high winds, and a 1974 statute actually pre-empted stricter state standards with more lax federal ones.

Throughout the South and Midwest, mobile-home communities and poor neighborhoods are also much more likely to be sited in flood plains.

In New Orleans, the worst-hit parishes were the lower-income ones. But the city also ignored the power of nature. More than one million acres of Louisiana's coastal wetlands, or 1,900 square miles, have been lost since 1930, due to development and the construction of levees and canals. Barrier islands and stands of tupelo and cypress also vanished. All of them absorb some of the energy and water from storm surges, which, more than the rain falling from the sky, caused the current calamity. "If these had been in place, at least some of the energy in the storm surge would have been dissipated," says geologist Jeffrey Mount of the University of California, Davis. "This is a self-inflicted wound."

Studies estimate that for every square mile of wetlands lost, storm surges rise by one foot.

Leaving aside whether the levees that broke in New Orleans could have been better constructed, their very existence contributed to the disaster. Built to keep the city from being flooded by the Mississippi, they also keep the Big Muddy from depositing silt to replenish marshes and the river's delta, as do projects that direct the river's water and sediment out to sea to create a deep shipping channel.

The result is that much of New Orleans fell below sea level. Combined with the dredging to build canals, "the Gulf of Mexico is a lot closer to New Orleans than it was when Hurricane Betsy ripped through in 1965," says Prof. Steinberg. Now the gulf is in the city.

The ultimate question is whether Katrina's power reflects human-caused global warming, or is at minimum a harbinger of the kinds of storms we can expect in a warmer world.

No single freak storm can be attributed to global climate trends. But for hurricanes to form, the surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic must exceed about 80° Fahrenheit. That is more likely in a warmer world.

The best science to date suggests the frequency of hurricanes doesn't reflect global warming. Straightforward physics, however, says their intensity might. As the seas and air warm, there is more evaporation, which fuels storms, and more energy available to pump them up. A new analysis by atmospheric physicist Kerry Emanuel of MIT suggests the net power of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and Pacific typhoons), a combination of the energy they pack and how long they last, "has increased markedly since 1970."

The power of storms in the North Atlantic has tripled, while the power of those in the western North Pacific has more than doubled.

Similarly, a 2004 study from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J., part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, found that a warmer world is likely to deepen hurricanes' central pressure (a measure of their power) and intensify the rainfall they bring. Today's storms, the scientists write, "may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

By continuing to blame weather extremes on random events, the "stuff happens" attitude, officials and city planners are ignoring their contributions to the disasters that have pummeled the planet and promise to become only worse.

[MavKikiNYC]

Here's some information about this quoted Mr Gray...: "Gray served as a weather forecaster for the United States Air Force" I just don't believe this guy.

Uhm...well at least your skepticism is rationally based.

The ultimate question is whether Katrina's power reflects human-caused global warming, or is at minimum a harbinger of the kinds of storms we can expect in a warmer world.

No single freak storm can be attributed to global climate trends. But for hurricanes to form, the surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic must exceed about 80° Fahrenheit. That is more likely in a warmer world.

<u>The best science to date suggests the frequency of hurricanes doesn't reflect global warming. </u>

Even the article you post in reply clearly points out the lack of connection to global warming, although it goes on to make some speculative observations about speculated connections.

[LRB]

By ignoring the true science behind global warming, and instead fear mongering unscientificly based and political agenda fueled warninga about global warming during every weather based natural disaster, the proponents of global warming do far more to damage their cause than to increase support. Essientially the over vocal "enviromental nutcases" have caused millions to turn a deaf ear to legitimate enviromenta concerns due to the numerous outright lies and not so cleverly crafted deceptions to perpetuate their cause. Addmittedly, many are not purposefully attempting to decieve, but are rather showing their incredible ignorance to the facts. Credibility once lost is incredibly hard if not impossible to regain.

[Arne]

Originally posted by: LRB
By ignoring the true science behind global warming, and instead fear mongering unscientificly based and political agenda fueled warninga about global warming during every weather based natural disaster, the proponents of global warming do far more to damage their cause than to increase support. Essientially the over vocal "enviromental nutcases" have caused millions to turn a deaf ear to legitimate enviromenta concerns due to the numerous outright lies and not so cleverly crafted deceptions to perpetuate their cause. Addmittedly, many are not purposefully attempting to decieve, but are rather showing their incredible ignorance to the facts. Credibility once lost is incredibly hard if not impossible to regain.

So right, so right... I only hope that your president reads this, because just a few days ago he admitted that the Iraq war was, indeed, about the oil.


No I'm gonna quote my own article and tell you, what I read:

The ultimate question is whether Katrina's power reflects human-caused global warming, or is at minimum a harbinger of the kinds of storms we can expect in a warmer world.

No single freak storm can be attributed to global climate trends. But for hurricanes to form, the surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic must exceed about 80° Fahrenheit. That is more likely in a warmer world.

And now something about global warming...:


"The debate's over: Globe is warming
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
Don't look now, but the ground has shifted on global warming. After decades of debate over whether the planet is heating and, if so, whose fault it is, divergent groups are joining hands with little fanfare to deal with a problem they say people can no longer avoid.

The Larsen B ice shelf, on the eastern side of the Antarctic Peninsula, has shattered and separated from the continent as a result of warming.
National Snow and Ice Data Center

General Electric is the latest big corporate convert; politicians at the state and national level are looking for solutions; and religious groups are taking philosophical and financial stands to slow the progression of climate change.

They agree that the problem is real. A recent study led by James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies confirms that, because of carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases, Earth is trapping more energy from the sun than it is releasing back into space.

The U.N. International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that global temperatures will rise 2 to 10 degrees by 2100. A "middle of the road" projection is for an average 5-degree increase by the end of the century, says Caspar Amman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

What the various factions don't necessarily agree on is what to do about it. The heart of the discussion is "really about how to deal with climate change, not whether it's happening," says energy technology expert James Dooley of the Battelle Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Md. "What are my company's options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Are there new business opportunities associated with addressing climate change? Those are the questions many businesses are asking today."

The players

GE Chairman Jeffrey Immelt recently announced that his company, which reports $135 billion in annual revenue, will spend $1.5 billion a year to research conservation, pollution and the emission of greenhouse gases. Joining him for the announcement were executives from such mainline corporations as American Electric Power, Boeing and Cinergy.

Religious groups, such as the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, National Association of Evangelicals and National Council of Churches, have joined with scientists to call for action on climate change under the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. "Global warming is a universal moral challenge," the partnership's statement says.

And high-profile politicians from both parties are getting into the act. For example, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for a reduction of more than 80% over the next five decades in his state's emission of greenhouse gases that heat in the atmosphere.

To be sure, many companies — most notably oil industry leader ExxonMobil — still express skepticism about the effects of global warming. And the Bush administration has supported research and voluntary initiatives but has pulled back from a multi-nation pact on environmental constraints.

The administration was on the defensive last week when The New York Times reported that a staff lawyer has been softening scientific assessments of global warming. White House spokesman Scott McClellan defended such action as a routine part of a multi-agency review process.

Nonetheless, the tides of change appear to be moving on.

"As big companies fall off the 'I don't believe in climate change' bandwagon, people will start to take this more seriously," says environmental scientist Don Kennedy, editor in chief of the journal Science. Companies aren't changing because of a sudden love for the environment, Kennedy says, but because they see change as an opportunity to protect their investments.

"On the business side, it just looks like climate change is not going away," says Kevin Leahy of Cinergy, a Cincinnati-based utility that reports $4.7 billion in annual revenue and provides electricity, mostly generated from coal, to 1.5 million customers. Most firms see global warming as a problem whose risks have to be managed, he says.

Power companies want to know what sort of carbon constraints they face — carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas — so they can plan long term and avoid being hit with dramatic emission limits or penalties in the future, he says.

Science and solutions

Climate scientists say this acceptance comes none too soon. "All the time we should have been moving forward ... has been wasted by arguing if the problem even exists," says Michael Mann of the University of Virginia.

The IPCC estimates that rainfall will increase up to 20% in wet regions, causing floods, while decreasing 20% in arid areas, causing droughts. The Environmental Protection Agency says melting glaciers and warmer ocean waters will likely cause an average 2-foot rise in sea level on all U.S. coasts by 2100.

Carbon dioxide is the byproduct of burning fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas or oil. There are now about 1 trillion tons of carbon from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. By the end of the century, atmos-pheric carbon projections range from 1.2 trillion tons if stringent corrective steps are taken to 2.8 trillion tons if little is done.

Moving ahead with solutions looks like the hardest part of the equation for the United States. The Bush administration's stance has frustrated advocates of a more aggressive response.

Bush explained in a 2001 speech why he opposed joining the Kyoto Protocol, a global agreement to curb greenhouse gases: "The (Kyoto) targets themselves were arbitrary and not based upon science. For America, complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases."

Instead, the administration "harnesses the power of markets and technological innovation, maintains economic growth, and encourages global participation," former Energy Department head Spencer Abraham wrote last year in Science. He pointed to tax incentive programs, climate research and technologies such as "FutureGen," the Energy Department's 10-year,$1 billion attempt at creating a coal-fired power plant that emits no greenhouse gases.

Other administration efforts:

• The $1.7 billion hydrogen fuel-cell car initiative announced two years ago in Bush's State of the Union address.

• A $49 million carbon "sequestration" initiative with 65 projects to see whether carbon dioxide can be stripped from emissions.

• Participation in the international ITER program to develop nuclear fusion as an energy source.

The administration has encouraged voluntary efforts. Fourteen trade groups representing industrial, energy, transportation and forest companies have signed up for a program aimed at cutting greenhouse-gas emissions 18% by 2012.

So why isn't this enough to assuage critics?

Rick Piltz, a science policy expert who resigned in protest from the administration's Climate Change Science Program in March, says the reliance on voluntary measures and long-term technology breakthroughs is a roadblock against simple conservation steps that could curb emissions now. Piltz provided the edited documents that were the subject of last week's story in The New York Times.

Commonly cited examples of the conservation steps Piltz mentions:

• Incentives for emission controls on the oldest and least efficient power plants.

• More stringent mileage and tailpipe requirements on vehicles.

• Expanded tax credits for more efficient air conditioners, hybrid cars and appliances.

Political leaders will support such measures only if the benefits come at a low cost to the economy, says William Reilly, co-chair of the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy and former head of the EPA under President George H.W. Bush. "But there is a lot going on, and I think we will be seeing some movement on this."

Away from the political arena, other irons are in the fire:

• More people are advocating nuclear power. Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore told a congressional panel in April that "nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse gas-emitting energy source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand."

• Immelt called for the United States to adopt an emissions-trading plan for greenhouse gases. Taking a cue from the EPA's policy of having companies buy and sell permits to release sulfur dioxide, which is responsible for acid rain, economists suggest that such a scheme would limit carbon dioxide by making emissions economically less feasible. In Congress, the Climate Stewardship Act proposed by Sens. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and John McCain, R-Ariz., would commit the country to such a plan.

No 'silver bullet' solution

Pressure for reforms may come most strongly from "socially responsible" investors. "We make bottom-line arguments to companies to make decisions in the interests of their shareholders," says John Wilson of Christian Brothers Investment Services, which manages $3.5 billion in investor funds. The firm advises 1,000 Catholic institutions, such as churches, schools and hospitals.

A Christian Brothers resolution in May asked ExxonMobil "to explain the scientific basis for its ongoing denial of the broad scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to global climate change." The resolution garnered 10.3% of shareholders' votes, representing 665 million shares worth more than $36 billion, despite the opposition of management.

"The future of energy is plainly moving away from fossil fuels and we want the companies (that) we invest in to explain how they plan to adjust," Wilson says.

Dooley, of the Battelle Institute, says: "We need a whole series of 'home runs' and maybe even a couple of 'grand slams' to successfully address this problem. More efficient refrigerators, better and cheaper solar cells, hybrid automobiles, fuel cells, power plants that capture and store their (carbon dioxide) deep below the surface and nuclear power. They all have important roles to play."

"No one seriously talks about trying to address climate change with one technology," Dooley says. "Everyone understands that there isn't a 'silver bullet' out there waiting to be discovered."

[MavKikiNYC]

So you'll trust the journalistic representation of a reporter from USA Today, but not a scientific explanation from former US Air Force Meteorologist?

Go figure.

[dude1394]

It's all on what side of the aisle they land kiki. Rationality and logic have nothing to do with it anymore.

[Arne]

You two should just read. The article is quoting scientists.

A recent study led by James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies confirms that...

So I believe a scientist but I don't trust the scientist who worked for the gouvernment.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: Arne
And last but not least, America should start to take global warming seriously.

Maybe I misunderstood.

But if your original incorrect thesis (implict or explicit) was that global warming was reponsible for this hurricane, no scientist in either article supported you. In fact, they have stated the contrary.

[LRB]

Arne it only seems like you care about 3 things. 1) hating Bush 2) global warming 3) spewing whatever lies, half truth's, and misleading articles that support your positions. It appears obvious to me that you don't give a damn about the suffering human beings in New Orleans and other areas hit by Katrina, that is other than how they can be exploited to make your political points. Somehow I have the feeling that nothing would make you happier than to see millions die in a way that you could exploit to show how you were right, and conversely nothing would make you sadder than to see millions of lives saved if it make you political agenda appear to be wrong. That's just sad and pathetic.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

Maybe I misunderstood.

But if your original incorrect thesis (implict or explicit) was that global warming was reponsible for this hurricane, no scientist in either article supported you. In fact, they have stated the contrary.

a warmer earth is expected to produce stronger hurricanes.

The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although we cannot say at present whether more or fewer hurricane will occur in the future with global warming, the hurricanes that do occur near the end of the 21st century are expected to be stronger and have significantly more intense rainfall than under present day climate conditions. This expectation (Figure 1) is based on an anticipated enhancement of energy available to the storms due to higher tropical sea surface temperatures.

noaa

the recent years have had the 2nd and 3rd warmest subsurface water temperatures on record. warmer water produces more intense hurricanes.

no, global warming didn't cause this hurricane, yet it is an example of what we can expect if the earth's temperature continues its rise.

[MavKikiNYC]

a warmer earth is expected to produce stronger hurricanes.

the recent years have had the 2nd and 3rd warmest subsurface water temperatures on record. warmer water produces more intense hurricanes.

no, global warming didn't cause this hurricane, yet it is an example of what we can expect if the earth's temperature continues its rise.

Had C-span going on in the background, and they replayed testimony/presentations from (I believe) representatives from different emergency planning entities, among them some meterologists/weather forecasters. Came in on the middle of this, so I don't know the context of the meetings; did catch the presentation date as 06.29.05.)

The point was made, that the bulk of generally accepted research showed that there was no established causality between global warming and the number and frequency of hurricanes, relative to natural variation.

The presenter (missed his name/affiliation) did acknowledge that there was one study that theorized that there could be a 5-10% increase in the intensity of storms, over the next 80 years.

[Drbio]

Why are you guys wasting so much time talking to some hokey bassackwards frenchie retreater?

[Arne]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

Maybe I misunderstood.

But if your original incorrect thesis (implict or explicit) was that global warming was reponsible for this hurricane, no scientist in either article supported you. In fact, they have stated the contrary.

Nah, but global warning raises the chances of hurricans and other natural catastrophes. That's my point. And it can raise the grade of a tragedy like this sometimes.

[Arne]

Originally posted by: LRB
Arne it only seems like you care about 3 things. 1) hating Bush 2) global warming 3) spewing whatever lies, half truth's, and misleading articles that support your positions. It appears obvious to me that you don't give a damn about the suffering human beings in New Orleans and other areas hit by Katrina, that is other than how they can be exploited to make your political points. Somehow I have the feeling that nothing would make you happier than to see millions die in a way that you could exploit to show how you were right, and conversely nothing would make you sadder than to see millions of lives saved if it make you political agenda appear to be wrong. That's just sad and pathetic.

You know what? Fuck you.

I care about every single fucking person in New Orleans. I care about all people that's why I'm standing up for more tollerance and a gouvernment who actually supports a social security system. A gouvernment where it shouldn't matter if you're rich or poor in order to get saved.

[mavsman55]

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Honesly, these people need help. It's not the time to be playing the blame game and using the situation to your advantage. I don't sense any sympathy for the victims of this horrible event. Whether or not you have a problem with Mr. Bush, what happened has already happened. Anything negative said about him due to this event can't be interpreted as anything other than taking advantage of the situation.

[Arne]

Originally posted by: mavsman55
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Honesly, these people need help. It's not the time to be playing the blame game and using the situation to your advantage. I don't sense any sympathy for the victims of this horrible event. Whether or not you have a problem with Mr. Bush, what happened has already happened. Anything negative said about him due to this event can't be interpreted as anything other than taking advantage of the situation.

Nah, it's about opening peoples eyes. Because if nothing was going on in New Orleans, nobody would even listen to anything.

[alby]

its amazing to me how there are people using, exploiting, and wrongfully taking advantage of the terrible tragedy in the gulf coast to promote their own individual politcial agendas. instead of unifying together as a country supporting the president and his administration in this great time of need, there are those who criticize it playing the blame game and pointing the finger at our president.

how is it considered helping the people in the region hit by the hurricane when you donate money towards the recovery efforts but at the same time create unrest and instability between the government and the people?

there is a time and place to show your distaste towards the government, its pretty obvious that this is definitely not one of those times.

[Arne]

Originally posted by: alby
its amazing to me how there are people using, exploiting, and wrongfully taking advantage of the terrible tragedy in the gulf coast to promote their own individual politcial agendas. instead of unifying together as a country supporting the president and his administration in this great time of need, there are those who criticize it playing the blame game and pointing the finger at our president.

how is it considered helping the people in the region hit by the hurricane when you donate money towards the recovery efforts but at the same time create unrest and instability between the government and the people?

there is a time and place to show your distaste towards the government, its pretty obvious that this is definitely not one of those times.

First of all, he's not my president. I'm not an American. Second of all, do you really think it hurts the people of New Orleans if you criticise the government? Do you really think that this effects them in a bad way??? I DON'T THINK SO. The people in New Orleans are angry at the government as well and it can only help the situation if you pressure the government into taking actions!

[MavKikiNYC]

Well I'm sure the politicians are feeling the pressure you're applying, especially since you aren't even eligible to vote.

Why don't you go fuck ChIraq's corpse?

[Arne]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
Well I'm sure the politicians are feeling the pressure you're applying, especially since you aren't even eligible to vote.

Why don't you go fuck ChIraq's corpse?

Why don't you go suck your great presidents cock? I'm not french, asshole.

You guys started all this name-calling, so you should stop it, as well.

[MavKikiNYC]

Why don't you go suck your great presidents cock?

Was gonna suggest that to you, but he's already busy fucking Democrats up one side and down the other.

Eat that instead.

[Arne]

Uuuuhhhh...

[mavsman55]

The people in New Orleans are angry at the government

I'm not an American

So tell me.. how could you possibly know this?

[Arne]

Originally posted by: mavsman55

So tell me.. how could you possibly know this?

You know I actually can speak another language, I can read American newspapers, I can read the articles on the internet, I see it on television: mostly black and poor people who are very angry with the government.

[MavKikiNYC]

So as we suspected, you know nothing.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: Arne

You know I actually can speak another language, I can read American newspapers, I can read the articles on the internet, I see it on television: mostly black and poor people who are very angry with the government.

Exactly. Media. You see, all you know is what the media tells you. Hundreds of thousands of people were affected by this hurricane. What the Media does is go to incredible heights to reach the handful of people who are pissed off about the help they received and blame it on the government. This makes for interesting news stories. This makes money for the Media. This is why, in a time like this, you'll rarely see somebody complementing government aid on television or in newspapers. Why you rely on this tainted system so much is confusing.