Putting the comment back into context, however, there are a few problems with the logic of this suggestion, and not just that he, Bush, was the creator of the “eat local” concept.

The statement was made in response to a question on the relationship between ethanol and food price increases: (quote from press conference after the jump).

“Actually, I have a little different take: I thought it was 85 percent of the world’s food prices are caused by weather, increased demand and energy prices — just the cost of growing product — and that 15 percent has been caused by ethanol, the arrival of ethanol.

By the way, the high price of gasoline is going to spur more investment in ethanol as an alternative to gasoline. And the truth of the matter is it’s in our national interests that our farmers grow energy, as opposed to us purchasing energy from parts of the world that are unstable or may not like us.

In terms of the international situation, we are deeply concerned about food prices here at home and we’re deeply concerned about people who don’t have food abroad. In other words, scarcity is of concern to us. Last year we were very generous in our food donations, and this year we’ll be generous as well. As a matter of fact, we just released about $200 million out of the Emerson Trust as part of a ongoing effort to address scarcity.

One thing I think that would be — I know would be very creative policy is if we — is if we would buy food from local farmers as a way to help deal with scarcity, but also as a way to put in place an infrastructure so that nations can be self-sustaining and self-supporting. It’s a proposal I put forth that Congress hasn’t responded to yet, and I sincerely hope they do.”

Let’s look at the logic here. If more and more farmland gets diverted to commodity crops for ethanol production, how are we going to provide food for the world AND have land left for local farms? If just fifteen percent of the food price issues were caused by using farmland for ethanol, how is using more farmland for ethanol going to be part of the solution? Not to mention the massive input of fossil-fuel based fertilizers that are used to grow that commodity crop conventionally. Or, the fact that current demand for local food may become greater than what can be supplied with only four percent of our nation’s farms growing fruits and vegetables.

On the chance that this “new” buying local concept of our president’s may sour you on the idea of buying local, please don’t quit. Buying local is your movement. Your choice. Your actions. And they make a huge difference for positive changes in this country.

Over the past week rumors and rumblings about a climate plan underway in the current and fading Whitehouse have emerged. Thankfully, it all seems a bit “disappointing.”

Seventeen nations have come together in Paris for two days in the latest round of climate warming talks, under the heading of the Major Emitters Meeting. The South African delegation was the one to label Bush’s proposals – to halt a rise in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 – as disappointing. “There is no way whatever that we can agree to what the U.S. is proposing,” South African Environmental Affairs Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk said in a statement.

According to Bush’s plan, “the growth in emissions will slow over the next decade, stop by 2025, and begin to reverse thereafter, so long as technology continues to advance.” This is just fantastic, considering that according to the U.N. Climate Panel, emissions will have to peak – worldwide – within 10 to 15 years – and then fall sharply if we are to avoid floods, droughts and rising seas.

Greenpeace also took a swing at Bush, though with their well-known for inaccuracy and fervent ignorance. In response to Bush’s plan, Greenpeace said that “Yes, for another 15 years the country that has spewed more emissions into the atmosphere than any other country on Earth will continue to emit more and more.”

It seems an innocuous statement, but you have to wonder at the timing just days after China was named the world’s biggest emitter. There’s some math to be done there, for sure, but who has released more emissions? Either way, they know how to make a splash.

That being said, when targeting George W. Bush, no one really seems to mind except for the Bush fans (and those on Digg.com).

I’ll finish this article with what the brilliant Noble Peace Prize Laureate, Desmond Tutu, has to say about the rich west and their point of view on climate change.

“Many rich world leaders have not, so far, responded to the climate crisis with the urgency required. Cushioned and cosseted, they have had the luxury of closing their minds to the real impact of what is happening in the fragile and precious atmosphere that surrounds the planet we live on.

“I wonder how much more anxious they might be, if they depended on the cycle of mother nature to feed their families. How much greater would their concerns be if they lived in slums and townships, in mud houses, or shelters made of plastic bags? In large parts of sub-Saharan Africa, this is a reality. The poor, the vulnerable and the hungry are exposed to the harsh edge of climate change every day of their lives. …

“At the Major Economies Meeting in Paris, developed countries must commit to immediate action against climate change. The United Nations need to deliver an action plan to save the planet at the climate change conference in 2009. There is no time to be distracted from the urgent task to deliver this global rescue plan. The world is watching, and those who are feeling the impacts of climate change today, are expecting decisive action - now.”

More from the GO Network

Could Action on Climate Really Be Bush Legacy?

Tim Hurst wrote, “I would argue that the only opportunity the current president has to leave a positive and lasting legacy is to take ownership of the climate change and global warming issue” in response to rumors that Bush supports a new climate proposal. Could this be Bush’s declaration of war on climate change? I hope not, as the United States has failed to previously win a war on cancer, poverty, or drugs, and these wars have gone on for decades. We don’t have decades to solve the problem of climate change; we must do it now. Of course, when Bush is involved, I have to be skeptical of his true intentions, especially when the Associate Press reports the Bush administration is motivated to avoid a “train wreck” of climate change regulations. I suspect the Bush climate policy would be a watered down version of these other regulations, besides the White House may already be retreating on the issue.

We don’t need to declare war on global warming; we need to take action. Action will require governmental regulation that is effective and not impotent. Water-downed policies created in an election year will not solve the problem and place the United States in a position of world leader on climate change. Action should be taken not for political reasons; actions should be taken to preserve our climate.

Image credit: Sierra Club

Related posts:

• Could Action on Climate Really Be Bush Legacy?
• 350 Parts Per Million: It’s the Magic Number!
• Bush Administration Just Says ‘No’ to Science
• Bush Continues to Erode Own Scientific Integrity

Personally, I don’t understand how the oil companies can justify passing the entire burden off on the American people of the rising cost of gasoline considering our current economic recession. Exxon Mobil Corp., BP America Inc., Shell Oil Co., Chevron Corp., and ConocoPhillip know high fuel prices are hurting consumers, but on Tuesday they defended their profits of $123 billion last year as in line with other industries. “Our earnings, though high in absolute terms, need to be viewed in the context of the scale and cyclical, long-term nature of our industry as well as the huge investment requirements,” said J.S. Simon, Exxon Mobil’s senior vice president.

“On April Fool’s Day, the biggest joke of all is being played on American families by Big Oil,” said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. Markey wants oil companies to invest 10 percent of their profits to develop renewable energy, as well as relinquish up to $18 billion in tax breaks over 10 years. This money would then be used to support renewable energy and conservation. The oil companies’ response to this proposal is that they have already spent $3.5 billion over the last five years on renewable fuels, and they reject any tax increases. That may be, but it hasn’t been enough, or all of our cars would be getting at least 50 mpg. Without government intervention, the oil companies will continue to gouge the American consumer while making record profits. “These companies are defending billions of federal subsidies … while reaping over a hundred billion dollars in profits in just the last year alone,” stated Markey, chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. The House of Representatives has already approved legislation that will end tax breaks for big oil, while using this revenue to support wind, solar and other renewable fuels. The Senate has yet to pass this legislation.

According to AP writer H. Josef Herbert, “Recently oil prices reached a peak of $111 a barrel. While declining a bit in recent days, the price remains above $100 and there’s talk of $4 a gallon gasoline in the coming months.” Oh yes, the threat of $4 a gallon; I paid $3.99 a gallon today. I have always felt that American gas prices were too low prior to the Bush administration — that these prices did not adequately reflect the value of this limited resource. Now that we are experiencing high gas prices, I can’t help but wonder what I am paying for when oil companies are making record profits and the “supplies of both gasoline and oil seemed to be adequate.” I wouldn’t mind paying the current price for gasoline if the oil companies’ profits were slashed in order to bring about new developments and change in American energy use.

“The new agreement marks a turning point in US-Venezuela relations,” said Juan Johnston of the North American Monitor of Bribery in Latin America (NAMBLA). “It also underscores the magnitude of recent growth in demand for ethically produced goods.”

In Venezuela, Chavez introduced news of the trade deal with praise for the American president.

“You know, there’s been a confusion about how I feel about George,” said President Chavez. “I call him a white devil with love… y con mucho respeto. You know, he’s such a little white devil, that Bush. But really, he is what you say a man’s man — a husband, a dedicated golfer, and a man who takes what he wants when he wants it.”

Chavez added, “Venezuela and our neighbors struggle always against American economic imperialism that robs our countries and keeps them poor or depending on government oil handouts. I am so happy that my friend Bush is joining us in this fight. I feel that this is a big step in our relationship.”

Encouragement of friendly economic overtures between the two countries is said to have come at the urging of US Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, who has been pushing for economic cooperation in recent weeks. Reportedly, Bernanke became aware of the urgency of the United States’ economic situation last month when he was forced to auction his undershorts as Americana memorabilia to a Chinese collector.

With the severity of his country’s war spending debts to China in mind — as well as a promise to retrieve Bernanke’s undergarments — President Bush used healing words of his own to address the new direction in trade relations.

“We will meet Venezuelan workers with American fairness… fairdom. It’s like freedom, only fairer,” promised Bush at this morning’s press conference. “It’s like the Golden Rule of the Bible says, ‘treat others like you want them… Like you think they oughta be treated…’ Well, you know the one I mean. It’s the important one.”

Bush also apologized for numerous attempts to assassinate or overthrow the Venezuelan President as well as for the recently exposed CIA operation to incite a popular uprising following Chavez’ socialist referendum.

“Hugo’s a friend to America,” said Bush. “I wish I knew how to quit that man. I mean, this is the guy who stood beside America after the terrifying events of Katrina. He fights terrorism by supplying America with 12% of the oil we depend on to bring freedom to the Iraqi people. I mean, the least we should do for him is to help deliver fair wages to workers in Venezuela and other Latin speaking nations.”

With the promise of ethical business in the Americas in sight, there’s just one thing that could throw a spanner in the works: April 1.

From all of us at EcoWorldly, happy April Fools Day.

According to the Grist, “the EPA set both the ‘public health’ standard (how much ozone is permitted in one place at one time) and the ‘public welfare’ standard (consideration of the long-term effect of ozone) at the same level.” Before Bush’s command, the EPA had planned to make the “public welfare” standard more stringent, though not as low as their scientists were recommending. Bush’s orders sent the agency scrambling to avoid conflict with past EPA statements on the harmful effects of ozone. As quoted in the Washington Post, John Walke, clean-air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, explained:

It is unprecedented and an unlawful act of political interference for the president personally to override a decision that the Clean Air Act leaves exclusively to EPA’s expert scientific judgment.

So the next time you take a deep breath of smog filled air, responsible for heart and respiratory illnesses, thank the president for once again protecting the “public welfare” of big business.

Image source: noezbuckets

George W. Bush has definitely been a polarizing personality in his two terms as leader of the United States of America. From the beginning and his War on Iraq he has seemingly attempted to paint himself as nothing more than a moronic menace. Of late, Bush has turned his sights on becoming the world’s greatest environmental foe.

Some may call my words harsh. Others will praise them. They are however, nothing more than my personal opinion about him.

However his actions against the environment are both unquestionable and unconscionable.

A recent Reuters article stated that ‘In cases this week dealing with polar bears, ozone smog and environmental research, groups that monitor these decisions faulted the Bush administration for slighting science in favor of politics.’ I feel that, in looking at the past few months, this statement fails to explain just how Bush has thrown his weight around.

On Wednesday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released new 8-hour primary and secondary ozone standards of 75 parts per million. This was down from the previous limit which set it at 80 parts per million, but was still well above limits proposed not only by environmental and advocacy groups, but the members of the EPA itself.

Senator Hillary Clinton said in a statement on her website that “President Bush opened a new front in his administration’s war on science this week. His personal intervention to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency’s new limits on ozone proves that he has abandoned even a pretense of scientific integrity in decision-making. His efforts are directly at odds not only with accepted science, but with his government’s own arguments before the United States Supreme Court.”

“This is only the latest in a long series of examples where the Bush administration’s perversion of science helps special interests at the expense of public health — though it is certainly one of the more brazen. I will work with Senate Environment Committee Chair Barbara Boxer to investigate the President’s decision and to hold him accountable,” she added.

In response to criticism and by way of explanation, White House spokesman Tony Fratto explained that “What we were trying to do on the smog decision was try to have a decision that was consistent with our interpretation of the statute. This was not a weakening of regulations or standards governing ozone, but it was an effort to make those standards consistent.”

However many groups believe that these new regulations are built around coal-fired power plants and other industries that emit ground-level ozone.

“This is a pattern unfortunately that extends across the Environmental Protection Agency, across pretty much every science based agency in the federal government,” said Tim Donaghy of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

I’ll hold it there for the moment, and come to the polar bears soon. Needless to say, if we continue to see behavior like this from Bush, or even from other world leaders, we’re screwed.

Photo Courtesy of rkimpeljr via Flickr

I have but few words to say to that: “God Help us All!”

For too long Howard has managed to stumble blindly along in Bush’s wake, acting almost as if he was Bush’s man in the Australian Government, and ignored the responsibilities that he was given, if not as leader of Australia, but as a sane (we assume) human being.

I'm allowed to be this callous too. You see, I’m an Australian, and I’ve had to suffer through the past decade or so with Howard at the helm, and watch as he decided it would be funny to steer us right at those rocks over there that say "Global Warming!" and other such issues.

Together with Bush, Howard decided to forego signing the Kyoto Accord, as it would apparently not sit well economically if countries like Australia, America, etc, were forced to meet carbon emission cuts and countries like China and India were not. What's been weird is that, despite this apparent desire to see their respective countries continue to pollute the world to extinction, both leaders spearheaded local and international calls for global emissions cuts!

Pardon me if I’ve missed something, but wasn’t that was the Kyoto accord was all about? Granted, it left out some rather major polluters, but you have to start somewhere.

This rant comes in response to the fact that Howard is this year leading the APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) forum in Sydney, and has apparently put atop the agenda the desire for the 21 member-countries to formulate a plan to combat global warming.

Bush spoke a lot about fuel consumption, again alluding to our nation’s addiction to oil, but never called for a specific increase in vehicle efficiency standards. He repeated his State of the Union proposal to replace 20 percent of the nation’s gasoline with alternative fuels in the next 10 years. He summed up his plan:

"When it comes to the environment and energy, the American people expect common sense, and they expect action.”

But apparently not too much action: The Washington Post reports that U.S. negotiators are attempting to weaken a climate change declaration set to be unveiled at next month’s G-8 summit of the world’s top industrial nations. Specifically, U.S. officials want to strike a sentence about energy efficiency,

“Therefore we will increase the energy efficiency of our economies so that energy consumption by 2020 will be at least 30 percent lower compared to a business-as-usual scenario”

and language to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Furthermore, the U.S. proposed striking an opening line that declares

“…tackling climate change is an imperative, not a choice. We firmly agree that resolute and concerted international action is urgently needed in order to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and sustain our common basis of living."