Word: carbonization
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...knew it was too good to be true. A former oil executive calling for reduced carbon dioxide emissions. A Republican candidate chastising the country to treat global warming seriously. The director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assuring other countries that the United States would combat greenhouse gas emissions. But then there was a letter from President George W. Bush to Senators Helms, Hagel, Craig and Roberts, saying "[W]e must be very careful not to take actions that could harm consumers. This is especially true given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions...
...confirmed my suspicions. Bush will not regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Republicans are well known for comparing government to the private sector. Indeed, The New York Times credited Bush with bringing a "corporate look" to the White House, and Slate.com satirically christened Bush a "1950s CEO." So in an attempt to deal with my disappointment, I have tried to understand his decision from a business perspective. Yet even then the verdict of the man who is "restoring honesty and integrity" to the White House doesn...
...specifically, the newly confirmed director of the EPA, former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman. Whitman has been what Vice President Dick Cheney called a "good soldier," or, to avoid mixing metaphors, a loyal employee, and has made a point of talking up the administration's commitment to reducing carbon dioxide. Employees who go to bat for their bosses are a business asset. Yet Bush has seriously compromised the credibility of Whitman by opening her decisions to reversal by the president. When trying to seek compliance from industry on environmental regulations, Whitman will always be vulnerable, facing the prospect...
...instead promoting the somewhat wishful thinking that the planet could be saved in ways that were all good for corporate America and would interfere very little with U.S. consumption habits. That simply didn't square with the numbers - compliance with Kyoto, for example, would have required that current U.S. carbon gas outputs, which still increase each year, be cut by almost one third over the next decade...
...President Bush qualified the shift from his campaign promise with the almost charmingly guileless explanation that he'd failed to take notice of the fact that carbon dioxide is not listed as a pollutant in the 1970 Clean Air Act. This by-the-book rationalization is, of course, entirely at odds with the growing consensus among scientists that carbon gases are causing global warming, and puts the U.S. on a collision course with most of the international community, which has been pressing, through the Kyoto Accord on Climate Change, to curb carbon-gas outputs...