By: Daniel Moss

With great fanfare in January 2004, President Bush announced his initiative for a new manned mission to Mars. Alas, we haven’t heard much about this bold proposal since its unveiling and perhaps that’s a good thing, what with the full slate of serious problems facing the President on this planet – an Iraq mission which is very far from accomplished; his social security privatization scheme which seems to be going nowhere; record budget deficits; shortfalls in military recruiting; an explosive increase in terrorist acts; and growing nuclear threats in Iran and North Korea, to name a few.

The recently concluded G-8 Summit, however, gave President Bush a golden opportunity to address another earthly problem which is truly global in nature – that of global warming (or climate change.) British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the host of this year’s summit, put global warming – along with aid to Africa – at the top of the agenda. Of course, that agenda was upstaged by the horrific terrorist attacks in London, but the meeting still represented an opening for the President to confront an issue that much of the rest of the world cares passionately about.

That opportunity, unfortunately, was wasted. President Bush is almost singlehandedly responsible for the limited results on climate change that the summit did produce – a watered-down declaration which avoided setting targets or timetables for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The overwhelming body of scientific evidence suggests that global warming is occurring and will likely have devastating environmental consequences if not addressed. In early June, the national science academies of all of the G-8 countries, as well as those of Brazil, China and India, the three largest developing nations, confirmed as much. In a joint statement, the scientists declared that:

- Climate change is real;
- Human activities, through the increased concentration of greenhouse grasses, are causing temperatures to rise;
- The causes of climate change need to be addressed; and
- The negative consequences of climate change may be very severe.

For people like President Bush, who profess to be strong believers in “sound science,” such statements from a vast and diverse collection of scientific experts should be convincing. Unfortunately, however, they are not.

Apparently, an overwhelming majority of scientific evidence does not sufficiently meet the standard of ‘sound science’ for global warming critics. Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a staunch ally of President Bush, contended in a June 14 op-ed in USA Today that there is “a lack of scientific consensus” to justify actions to address climate change. The Senator dismissed those who do advocate such measures as “climate change alarmists” and charged that “some still seek to solve a problem even before it has been established one exists.” (Never one to alarm others, Senator Inhofe has also referred to global warming as “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”)

Of course, the Bush Administration’s idea of ‘sound science’ as it applies to global warming has never been particularly sound and has rarely been based on actual science. This, after all, is the Administration which eagerly censored its own Environmental Protection Agency’s comprehensive report on the environment to make it anything but comprehensive regarding climate change. And, most recently, the Administration’s ‘sound science’ credentials were diminished by the revelation that a former oil industry lobbyist was editing climate change reports – before resigning to take a job with Exxon.

For allies of President Bush and Senator Inhofe, there is insufficient evidence to support the notion of global warming (or of the theory of evolution, for that matter) but more than enough evidence to support ‘intelligent design’ – the concept which stresses the influence of a higher power in the development of our species.

The issue is NOT whether there is uncertainty related to the topic of climate change. As the international science academies readily acknowledged in their June statement, “There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate.” But the scientific academies cited the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and contended that “…a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous … interference with the climate system.”

In fact, the President himself has repeatedly demonstrated that “a lack of full scientific certainty” would not stand in the way of U.S. action on a variety of issues. For example, the lack of such certainty about the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction did not stop the President from invading Iraq. Nor has the lack of scientific certainty about the efficacy of abstinence-only education programs prevented this Administration from enthusiastically embracing them at the expense of more comprehensive sex education programs.

Fortunately, in spite of the glaring abdication of presidential leadership, some progress is being made in the United States on addressing global warming. State governments, in particular, have increasingly stepped into the policy void by aggressively seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their respective states. And on the federal level, at the end of June, the Senate passed a resolution in support of mandatory emission controls for greenhouse gases. Of course, this in many ways was a minimal step. It was a nonbinding resolution, and committed the Senate to absolutely nothing. Nonetheless, the resolution reflects changing attitudes in that legislative body, and a growing recognition that voluntary measures are not sufficient.

The fact remains, however, that the United States stands virtually alone on the international stage in its refusal to acknowledge the overwhelming body of scientific evidence on climate change and the need to aggressively act on that evidence. The man who offered such a bold plan of aiming for Mars, and who now loftily extols the promise of democracy in the Middle East (after the primary reason for invading Iraq didn’t work out so well) offers a global warming policy of timidity and tired rhetoric.

If the President truly valued ‘sound science,’ he would enthusiastically provide leadership on this global issue. But first, he must acknowledge that there is an issue at all. Unlike his proposed manned mission to Mars, climate change is not going away anytime soon.

Houston, we have a problem

Daniel Moss is a consultant based in Arlington, Virginia. He took a leave of absence in September 2004 to work as the regional field director in Pittsburgh for the National Jewish Democratic Council.