All I Need is the Air That I Breathe

Bush’s war on the environment is cloaked in populist rhetoric.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


President Bush is blaming his carbon dioxide switcheroo on the current US energy crisis. Reducing CO2 emissions from coal-burning power plants, he argues, would cost consumers and further burden the energy supply system.

Naturally, that’s hardly the whole story. The Bush flip-flop has nothing to do with coal and even less to do with his concern about the energy crisis. It’s about — what else? — oil. First off, coal-burning isn’t the only source of CO2 emissions in the country. It’s not even the biggest: petroleum is.

And carbon dioxide isn’t just an unfortunate byproduct of energy production: it’s also a tool. Pumping concentrated CO2 gas into oil wells — a practice known as “CO2 flooding” — increases both production and profits for Big Oil. And that’s a cause close to both Bush and Cheney‘s hearts.

The US actually gives oil companies that use “enhanced oil recovery” technologies, such as pumping CO2 into wells to force out every last drop, a 15 percent tax credit.

Carbon dioxide, believe it or not, even has a fan club. The Greening Earth Society’s Web site (associated with the ominous fossilfuels.org, which claims that God provided fossil fuels so that humankind could flourish on Earth) proclaims that “CO2 is not a pollutant, but rather one of nature’s most fundamental building blocks.” True, of course, but the implication that the CO2 produced by fossil-fuel burning is somehow enhancing nature is ludicrous. Another CO2 booster is Ray Cordato, who wrote “CO2 is Good: Maybe We Should Subsidize It,” which appeared in the April 1998 Carolina Journal.

Then there’s the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which publishes CO2 Science magazine, and which claims “There has been no global warming for the past 70 years.”

Just after the Bush flip-flop on CO2 came the administration’s decision. EPA chief Christine Whitman (notice how often she changes her name? It was Christine Todd Whitman, then Christie Whitman, and now just Christine Whitman) defended the decision with this qualification:

“It is clear that arsenic, while naturally occurring, is something that needs to be regulated.”

Is it just me, or does it seem like Whitman slipped that “naturally occuring” bit in to imply that arsenic is really kinda good in a way, and we should think twice about policing “nature”? Uranium and mercury, it’s worth noting, are also naturally occuring. Will these soon be on the list of nutrients with recommended daily dietary allowances?

Residents of Fallon, Nev. just might take issue with Bush and Whitman’s decision to overturn stricter limits on just how much arsenic may be allowed in our drinking water before it’s no longer officially “safe.” The town, long known for having the nation’s highest levels of arsenic in its drinking water, has been hit with an outbreak of leukemia among local children — what researchers call a “cancer cluster.” Yet the area’s own representative in Congress was among the first to challenge the proposed tougher arsenic regulations.

In both the CO2 and arsenic decisions, the Bush administration claimed that there was no “consensus” in the scientific community about the dangers of these substances. As Chuck Fox points out in The New York Times, there is rarely true consensus on any issue in the vast scientific community. As it happens, scientists who claim that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming, or that little arsenic does a body good, often have ties to industries with considerable interest in preventing further regulation.

Bits and Pieces

THE CRUCIFIXION OF LENNY BRUCE
It isn’t just comedians like Chris Rock and George Carlin who are indebted to Lenny Bruce, says Nat Hentoff in Gadfly. Bruce was a caustic, effective, and largely unsung hero of the First Amendment.

IS HARRY POTTER SEXIST?
The whole hoo-ha over Harry Potter promoting satanism in children seems to have blown over. Now there are challenges from another group: feminists. Bitch magazine dissects the furor over a critique of the books in Salon in January, which charged that the female characters were all essentially negative stereotypes.

IT’S THE COWS’ VIETNAM
Scientists in Nevada have a clever idea about how to cheaply destroy all those cows and sheep being slaughtered to stem the hoof-and-mouth disease outbreak in Europe: napalm. Hey, there’s plenty of the soap-and-gasoline concoction left lying around, right? According to New Scientist, “The napalm is simply sprayed onto the animal carcasses and set alight. Napalm-fuelled flame throwers can be used to boost the flames if required.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate