A Boyhood Love For Porsches
Bush vows to stop emissions growth by 2025

Bush vows to stop emissions growth by 2025

Viknesh Vijayenthiran April 17th, 2008 Viknesh Vijayenthiran By Viknesh Vijayenthiran Author April 17th, 2008
  • Articles Contributed: 3138
  • Comments Posted: 0
  • Leaderboard Rank: N/A

December 31st, 1969 President George W. Bush has announced a goal of stopping the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.by 2025 but made no mention of any specifics on reaching that promise. Stating the U.S. was in fact serious about environmental awareness, Bush was quick to reiterate that any new legislation to help the goal shouldn't negatively affect American industry. Environmentalists were quick to slam the move as a shallow and undeveloped plan - and you can see their point. After dismissing the Kyoto protocol almost seven years ago, Bush's new plan outlines no strategies or methods of achieving the goal. While nations that signed the Kyoto protocol are moving onto new and more effective frameworks as part of a 2012 update, the U.S. will still be 13 years away from achieving any semblance of the same environmental success, reports the Associated Press. The plan would also allow the U.S. to continue to increase emissions until the 2025 cutoff date while many other countries have already starting reduced their own levels. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has praised the new mandate but others have been critical including presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Both Clinton and Obama have promised to bring environmental issues to the fore, as well as subsidize the U.S. auto-industry in this period of transition. George Bush has previously opposed any government bailout of the Detroit 3 but if the economy is to be rescued while reducing emissions this may be the only solution.
Bush vows to stop emissions growth by 2025

Bush vows to stop emissions growth by 2025

Enlarge Photo

President George W. Bush has announced a goal of stopping the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.by 2025 but made no mention of any specifics on reaching that promise. Stating the U.S. was in fact serious about environmental awareness, Bush was quick to reiterate that any new legislation to help the goal shouldn't negatively affect American industry.

Environmentalists were quick to slam the move as a shallow and undeveloped plan - and you can see their point. After dismissing the Kyoto protocol almost seven years ago, Bush's new plan outlines no strategies or methods of achieving the goal. While nations that signed the Kyoto protocol are moving onto new and more effective frameworks as part of a 2012 update, the U.S. will still be 13 years away from achieving any semblance of the same environmental success, reports the Associated Press.

The plan would also allow the U.S. to continue to increase emissions until the 2025 cutoff date while many other countries have already starting reduced their own levels.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has praised the new mandate but others have been critical including presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Both Clinton and Obama have promised to bring environmental issues to the fore, as well as subsidize the U.S. auto-industry in this period of transition. George Bush has previously opposed any government bailout of the Detroit 3 but if the economy is to be rescued while reducing emissions this may be the only solution.

Tags: Industry

Posted in: News


Comments (5 total)

Meet the top commenters on the Leaderboard

  1. By chris #1, Posted: 4/17/2008

    funny how one man can say that the US will reduce their emissions in 2026,.. a full 18 years after he even holds an office of power. he has no legislation in place. what's the point of empty words? it's not like he's running for re-election. and god knows mccain wants nothing to do with the guy.

  2. By bambam #2, Posted: 4/17/2008

    blah blah, people say that the us is behind. I thought the solution can only be achieve by the planets population and not just the US. I don't mind taking my time and working alone. As long as I'm going in the right direction and not coming last. Never know who would end up being
    first over the line by then.

  3. By zack #3, Posted: 4/17/2008

    that does seem like a silly thing to bring up this late in the game. but i think the underlying issue here has nothing to do with curbing emissions, and everything to do with preventing the next president from installing subsidies that benefit multi-billion dollar companies. subsidies are a tool that was invented to prevent an essential service or industry from becoming extinct--not to simply help mega-conglomerates weather a storm with a little more comfort and confidence. Democrats are trying to bastardize the natural progression of free enterprise by throwing money - instead of real solutions - at Americas problems.

  4. By chris #4, Posted: 4/17/2008

    zack; you're talking about subsidizing the largest manufacturing industry in the most economically wealthy nation in the world. but at the same time, one of the three companies that makes up that industry just got sold by a parent company that would rather eat a 36 billion dollar investment loss than "weather" this storm that you're talking about. american trends have asked for huge vehicles for the last 10 years. now all of a sudden everyone wants small and fuel efficient. thats a game that the US hasn't even considered since the 80's. the engineers who used to think about fuel efficiency back then are either retired or in upper management now.

    the bigger they are, the harder they fall. think what you will about unions, the big three, their products, their technology, reliability, value, or what not. but realize that detroit for one would become a ghost town or a video game inspired crime haven if the big 3 were left to their devices.

    GM is the only company turning a profit, and their investing that profit into a single platform, carte blanche. if the volt busts, the america you know is going to go bubyes. If gas prices continue to rise, I worry that ford won't be able to offer an advanced enough hybrid system on time to keep this rebound going. chrysler, is really teedering right now.

  5. By mr.ed #5, Posted: 4/18/2008

    So late, so lame. Doesn't even qualify as a band-aid in the home of the pushrods.

Post a Comment

Post anonymously
Sign In |
will stay private
your 'posted by' name will link to the URL

More from MotorAuthority

More from High Gear Media