How high will it go? (page 2)

DanTheMan

$5 a gallon or over might start to hurt, but if that were to happen I think expensive gas might be the least of my worries. Economists have been predicting a "correction" in the real estate market for quite a while, it hasn't happened yet but higher oil prices affect the cost of living in wayyyy more ways that just what we pay at the pump, and it doesn't take a great stretch of the imagination to imagine a chain reaction where increased costs of living make it so that nobody can afford houses at their current prices, which of course would cause a drop, possibly a drastic one. I'd really be hurting if that were to happen.

freedom96

Who knows, but I don't hear about anything over $3.00 a gallon in the future.

zev

in 2 weeks i'll have my economical 50-60 mpg gallon 750 cc motorcycle on the road.

beats 20 mpg in a car, only got to watch the weather.

nicolaou

Europeans need to remember that North American cars are built to guzzle gas. Conservation is not an objective of our car manufacturers and you would not see the kind of small cars they have in Europe here.

USA = biggest polluters of the planet! (I'm leaving Canada out of this.) And you're wrong about European cars. Sure we have plenty of small models, we Brit's invented the fabulous Mini! But even the big luxury models are designed to be as fuel efficient as possible. Why? Because that's what enlightened consumers demand from the manufacturers. When will America get it's head out of it's arse and realise that pollution matters. That conservation matters. That the ecology and the environment matter. The C02 we all pump out of our exhausts respects no boundaries, that's why we should all try harder!

EvilForce

While I can understand your plight JT, I cannot say that the current price of gas is too high. In Europe it is between $ 5.50 and $ 8.00 a gallon. HOWEVER, those crafty Socialists in Euorpe have alternative means of transportation. Go to any major European city and the need for a car becomes a luxury. I have gotten around all of Europe for 10 years now on business and have rented a car maybe 2 or 3 times. That would be impossible here in the US. The bus / subway / rail system in the country is a joke! But that has been our country's tax policy for 30 ought years. Build roads not mass transit solutions. Well the Highway Bill that just passed OVERSPENDS the gasoline tax taken in by 20%. So for every $ 1.00 in gas taxes you pay in...the current highway's cost $ 1.20. And as you sit in traffic wondering why they don't build better/more roads ponder that statistic.

Part of the large increase in the gas price is also to be laid directly at the Bush administration's feet. While our friends in Europe's gas bill has gone up slightly ours has jumped dramatically in large part due to the "weak dollar" policy of the Bush administration. Oil is priced in US Dollars. If US Dollars drop in value against the world currency basket then oil prices go up. But given that the Euro and other currencies got stronger and buy more dollars they do not experience the same pain as we do here in the US.

I drive an SUV that get's 14 miles per gallon in the city and 22 on the road. But my spouse and I only drive 10,000 to 12,000 miles per year. So please don't think that I am some tree hugging, granola eating, wus. I live in the city and live in a small flat...only about 1100 sq. feet compared to a house in the suburbs that would be 2,000 sq. feet for the same price. So I choose to not have a commute. I ride my bike to work alot of days, or walk seeing as it is only 1 1/2 miles away.

Also, as I predicted to my friends over 2 years ago I said we would spend about $ 300 billion on the Iraq quagmire. We are not quite there yet, but then we haven't gotten out yet either. We have spent over $ 200 billion and counting so far. My idea was to give a $10,000 rebate to anyone purchaing a hybrid car or one that got in excess of 35 miles per gallon on the hwy. We could have replaced 30,000,000 vehicles on the road or approxiamtely 1/4 of the cars on the road currently. That would have shaved our needs for imported oil by 2,000,000 barrels a day. (Ironcially, this 2,000,000 was the exact amount of oil Iraq was exporting before the war) Saving us $ 35 billion a year in imported oil. That $ 300 billion would have paid off after 8 1/2 years. Think the Iraq mess will pay off in 8 1/2 years?

So I digress.... I'm sure you bought a house in the sticks for a good reason JT... but the fact of the matter is energy is a precious commodity. The Chinese are also part of the reason energy is high. They will be competing for our petro-dollar. So my advice is to sell you gas guzzler or at least have one car in your family that get's 38 mpg on the road so you aren't too hard pinched by this issue. High energy prices are here to last for a few years.

Also, before I hear someone say to tap "Anwar" (Alaskan National Wildlife) please bear in mind that we would ruin this egosystem for the equivelent amount of oil that America uses in 200 days!!! So we would kill an ecosystem for 9 months worth of oil. I do not think that is being good stewards of God's land.

roybatty

USA = biggest polluters of the planet!

Another twisting of the facts. Why don't you look at the worst polluters per capita. That's a more reasonable comparison. I'm not saying that the U.S. doesn't have a lot of work to do in this area, but there are other countries that are even worse, namely Australia, Canada, Ireland and Belgium.

roybatty

Great post and some good points.

EvilForce

THE USA IS THE LARGEST POLLUTER ON THE EARTH.

That's not twisting the fact, it's misrepresenting it really.

The USA has 5% of the population of the Earth yet uses about 25% of it's engery resources. However the USA also has almost 28% of world GDP - Gross Domestic Product. So we are using energy in line to what we produce for the world.

I don't think name calling is going to get us far....as all of us could do a better job at conserving our energy needs!!! Americans, Canadians, Europeans, Asians....all the same.

EvilForce

This morning's USA Today says gas will peak at somewhere near $ 2.35 per gallon nationwide for regular unleaded assuming no additional oil scares. It also mentions that adjusted for inflation gas would have to hit $ 3.095 a gallon to be a record. FYI.

nicolaou

So using a quarter of the worlds energy resources is somehow a justification for America's abysmal ecological record? And what does GDP have to do with this argument? The production of more consumer goods is also no justification for continued environmental devastation.

For the record, I do not hold the UK or Europe up as shining examples of environmental responsibility, the difference seems to be that we are not in denial of what needs to be done. Our industries face the toughest 'green' legislation on CFC's, carbon release and emission control. Councils are being required to meet minimum recycling levels and yes, we signed up to Kyoto.

America and Europe are just different. we have different values and different priorities and this is one big example of it.

Today Programme Report - Text Only Version

BBC Radio 4 Print This Page Back to HTML version

October 2004

Climate Change

The Queen gave a speech about climate change on her state visit to Germany recently. Should the world be concerned about climate change or simply continue to research it?

On Thursday 4th November, the Today programme spoke to Myron Ebell. He is an American who advises President Bush on climate change and the director of global warming at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington.

During the interview John Humphrys asked him, ''Could it be, that you deny the evidence on global warming because the US is the biggest polluter?' He replied by saying, 'Not so, It's because the US is the only country to have many independent scientists, not funded by the government, unlike the EU, Japan or Australia.'

His reply sparked a few responses from our listeners. We thought we would air some of these emails and see if you wanted to join in this debate as to whether should be concerned about global warming or simply just continue to research it?. We are always grateful to hear from you.

Click here to send us you messages about climate change.

Or join in the debate on the message board. _______________________________

I could scarcely believe your interview with Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute this morning - I've had to use the "listen again" facility to confirm that he really did say those outrageous things. There can be little hope of the Americans taking the threat of Global Warming seriously whilst those who advise the President are given to paranoid fantasies like this. I was very surprised that he was not more strongly challenged over his assertion that Sir David King is not properly qualified to assess the risk of global warming. I think it is fair to say that a Fellow of the Royal Society is reasonably well-qualified to evaluate the meaning of scientific data. Or maybe there'll be a story about lowering standards for admission as FRS soon?!
From: Richard Hall

The interview with Mr Bush's scientific adviser this morning was a very frightening warning for us all. The level of ignorance displayed by him was breathtaking and his statement that global warming was a European plot to hurt American industry displays stupidity on an unbelievable scale. I fear for the planet with morons like this in positions of influence.
From: Richard Rose
Your interview with Myron Ebell this morning was the most spine-chilling I can ever remember.
He said "America is the only country in the world that has independant scientists": indpendant from whom? If the US government is not funding them then one must assume that they are funded by commercial interests. How independant can he feel when he is taking half a millions dollars of support from Exxon (Greenpeace claim for 2002)?
Interestingly the CEI website states that they have 40 staff (that includes the receptionist) and a budget of $3m per year. After real estate costs and staff costs that leaves a budget of how much? While he is dismissive of every other vocal scientist in the world it is not clear just what research the CEI actually does. Reading their mission statement it is difficult to believe that they are any more than a political lobbying organisation.
Today listeners will form their own views on the content of the interview but it would have been useful for some more background on the CEI, its delivered scientific work and so its credentials to make the statements that Myron Ebell made.
From: John Ovenden

Excellent. If you weren't getting "censured" occasionally you'd be doing it wrong. Keep up the good work. It's what I pay the licence fee for :)
From: Mark Serlin

That man would make an excellent Witch Finder General in the new administration.
From: Dr Francis Pryor
Now the so-called religious right are responsible for global warming! Perhaps the BBC should work on a link between Christianity and its role in the extinction of the dinosaurs. When will the BBC get off this tired old hobby horse of bashing the Bible and promoting a secular liberalism that has lost its ability to impress and guide the lives of people? American enthusiasm for religion and life is not necessarily a bad thing; indeed, infinitely preferable to the apathy in this country that has allowed so many minorities with a grudge push through their agenda
From: The Rev Tom Shields

Hello, why on earth did the Today programme devote almost half an hour to a nutter conspiracy theorist claiming that climate change was a Government conspiracy? It was incredible as he stumbled through an argument about the Queen, the Chief Scientist, and then ALL scientists in Europe and Japan (because they are in receipt of Government funding) are misleading the public about climate change. Okay, it was amusing for a while, but a 10 minute segment!! Please, can we seriously debate what policy measures we must do to slow climate change, instead of giving airtime to nutters in the interest of free speech.
From: Justine Johnson

Please let me know the name of the person John Humphrys interviewed on the above. He was a Bush advisor on Climate Change- worryingly so!
From: John Strawson
Dear Today team,
I couldn't help but marvel at this man's view of global warming as being a plot by the entire world to undermine the competitiveness of the US. Such deep-seated and overwhelming paranoia surely deserves some reward. Is a "Conspiracy Theorist of the Year" nomination possible?
From: Janet Savage

Dear Today Team
It was really scary to hear the views of the American scientist on the topic of Global Warming. His relentless denial of reliable FACTS I see as a 'symptom' of a primitive polarized mind-set which is being exploited in consumerist driven cultures - ie The West. Another symptom of this is the assumption that it is safe to trust our self-terrorizing fantasies of A Big Bogeyman Under the Bed or Behind the Curtain - 'Iron' or otherwise. These persecutory ideas are a bi-product of a culture where the capacity to THINK has been steadily undermined/devalued and notion of easy solutions promoted. It isn't in the interests of Big Business to have punters who question too much !We humans tend to mistake Symptoms for Cause especially as we are often unconscious of the latter and painfully aware of the former. There have always been charlatons and quacks ready to exploit our muddle-headedness. As I see it,we humans are Our OWN Worst Enemy in this respect.It was once said that 'the Devil has all the best tunes' and Colonel Booth set out to rectify it. At present it would seem that knowledge of our UNconscious processes* is being exploited by meglomaniacs AND a tendency in too many of us to want the so called 'Easy Life'. We have been educated to be dangerously passive and are now terrorized into the painful belief that we as individuals have no potency. May I hope that you will invite more guests from the Institute of Psychoanalysts who work daily with their patients in an endeavour to confront unconcious fears and beliefs.
From: Barbara Robson

Neil Britten sent us a three page essay on the issues of global warming.

Who is going to defend the world from American fundamentalist extremists like him?
From: Ken Morton

I listened to your interview with the USA spokesperson with growing dismay, but at the same time it gave me the best laugh this week. This is the kind of isolationist, arrogant, ignorant claptrap which I have come to expect from such people. My every visit to the States (Usually from Canada) confirms my view that they have NO IDEA what is going on there beyond their own shores.
From: Lynne Rushworth

Hearing remarks about David King (who apparently knows nothing) from a US spokesman, I am forced to wonder whether the US is going to spend 4 years defending its position by mud-slinging.
From: Peter Bissmire

Please get an official response to the OUTRAGEOUS comments of this man just now, who said that Sir David King apparently "doesn't know anything". If there needs to be only one example of the US conservative agenda this interview is it.
From: Lucy Rogers

They say that a "democratic" country gets the government it deserves. The tragedy is that in America's case that government then inflicts its paranoid neoconservative perspectives on the rest of us. It's bad enough waking up to the prospect of another four years of George Bush's world-wide hegemony, but why on earth is the today programme giving air time to such outrageous tosh as I've just heard postulated about global warming! Research is skewed by scientists all over the world who are in the pockets of governments' hostile to US business!? I suppose there isn't a scientist in the USA who is in the pockets of corporate America! Unbelievable!
From: Steve

No wonder the scientists at the climate change conference in Germany are depressed. Listening to the man who is "scientific" adviser to Bush is enough to make any ill. His claims that only American scientists are capable of being objective on this subject would be funny if the consequences were not so serious. Unfortunately, he reminded me of a spokesman from a closed and totalitarian regime, making the claim that only they had true knowledge which just happened to fit in with their ideological raison d'etre.
The whole point of his argument seemed to be that global warming was an anti-American fiction. I would go so far as to remind listeners that Nazi German rejected particle physics because it was a "Jewish" science.
From: Martin Veart

I have just listened to the mind-blowing arrogance of the American scientific advisor denigrating the rest of the world's scientists for their naive acceptance of climate change research with increasing incredulity and disquiet. Yesterday was indeed a black day for the world.
From: Ann Ovens

I welcomed today's piece on climate change - 'the single most important challenge facing the world' - and was particularly impressed by the way that John Humphrys revealed the inadequacy (bigotry?)of the American argument in his interview.
However, as usual, the seriousness of the issue was completely undermined by John's chuckling response to the Berlin conference report. Why does anything environmental elicit this 'cute fluffy animal' response from presenters? This is not a lightweight feel good story - this is as/more serious than the war in Iraq and is already having a direct effect upon our lives in Britain. Please treat environmental subjects with a little more respect and understanding, and stop using them as 'lightweight fillers' on your otherwise excellent programme.
From: Alison Munro

Thank you for producing a fascinating, if depressing report on Bush's re-election and the prospects for action on global warming.
I hope people are aware that the Competitive Enterprise Institute, whose spokesman has advised Bush, is essentially a lobby group for polluting industries. His claim that the Kyoto treaty is an attempt to make American business in general less competitive is a gross distortion.
As an economist who has advised the British government on the subject and published many studies of various countries, I am aware that there has been a deliberate attempt in the USA to grossly overstate the cost of joining Kyoto. If carbon taxation is necessary, the revenues can be recycled to lower other taxes. This is much better than continuing to guzzle petroleum forcing world oil prices up, which only benefits OPEC.
The very wastefulness of the American economy in terms of fuel means that it can cut emissions at virtually no net cost - provided it acts gradually. Kyoto initially gave America plenty of time to do so - it is mostly because of the lobbying and disinformation of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and their friends in Congress that any action has been delayed, at which point it genuinely does become more expensive.
From: Huw Edwards

John Humphrys interview with Myron Ebell was chilling. Can this man really be so deluded as to think he is holds the real truth and the rest of the world, driven only by envy, is simply attempting to spoil America's success?
How long will it be before America is not content with simply referring to itself as 'Leaders of the free world', but steps towards even more sinister ways of getting what it wants?
From: Graham Charlton

As an American, I listened with horror and depression to your interview with President Bush's so-called science advisor this morning. It is well known in the U.S. scientific community that the Bush administration has classified research which reaches conclusions which disagree with administration policies. This ensures that the public will never read this research. In other cases, scientific papers are edited to tone down their dissent. This was the subject of a recent NY Times article and is in fact the true experience of many in the U.S. Scientific community. Listening to Bush's "science" advisor made the reasons for these actions even more clear. With such a blind ideologue as the president's advisor, God help us all.
From: Anon

There is a direct correlation between the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the production of bovine faeces. The arguments of the American "expert" interviewed this morning brilliantly proved the point.
From: Bob Fitzharris

I am flabbergasted by the interview this morning on global warming. I can only hope that the Americans are as right about the lack of any evidence of global warming as they were wrong about the threat of Saddam Hussein's WMD? There will be much more significant implications for the world at large if, as I suspect, events prove them wrong again.
From: Adam Maxwell

Your interview of the man described as "Adviser to President Bush on Global warming" was fascinating. Last week I went to a performance of Arthur Miller's "The Crucible". Suddenly I was back in the theatre, listening to the same distorted logic. America has become, over the last decade, suddenly more dangerous than she has been over the last 100 years. Next time you have the opportunity, ask the American Ambassador to name the time and day when God put America in charge of the world and truth. We await the interview with bated breath.
From: Peter Biddulph

I've just had a brilliant idea! All we have to do is convince the Americans that climate change is a punishment from God for their greed, selfishness and arrogance - sort of Noah's Flood II. Shouldn't be too difficult - if they believe in Bush, they'll believe in anything.
From: Marilyn Dismore

As a climate science professional (a Professor) I was dismayed by the comments made by Myron Ebell on the Today programme. His sweeping generalization about climate scientists being effectively 'corrupt' is staggering. Moreover, his criticisms of Sir David King are nothing short of insulting. Sir David commands wide respect within the scientific community: a person does not reach the position of Government Chief Scientist without considerable skills in understanding a wide range of scientific issues.
Ebell's criticism of the IPCC 3rd Assessment Report as having had its findings being 'debunked' is myth. A large group of US scientists - The Union of Concerned Scientists - released a report earlier in the year criticising the US Administration for ignoring policy aspects of scientific findings, including climate science. This was signed by many leading figure including a number of Nobel Prize winners. It is notable that there is no such alliance in Europe of concerned scientists. Lastly, the US' own National Academy of Sciences was commissioned to review the IPCC 3rd Assessment Report on Climate Change and concurred with its findings.
I am insulted by Ebell's comments implied on my own and my colleagues' (including many US colleagues) integrity as scientists.
From: David Lee

I could not believe the arrogance of the so called American expert this morning. It makes me embarrassed to admit to being a US citizen. We have lived in this country for 21 years and felt then that the US was a society in decline. The election outcome, the state of the American press and the nonsense spewing out of this man has finally confirmed it.
From: Rebecca Shaw

I have never been so exercised as to write in to any media forum as I am now in response to John Humphrys brilliant expose of the extraordinarily blinkered Byron "whatever", the American who believes that global warming is merely a trade conspiracy against the United States. I am conservative by nature and a self confessed "American-ophile". In one fail swoop Byron has set back my faith in America as a nation immeasurably. This is not because I believe he is representative of all Americans, as I have many US friends who are equally alarmed by such narrow and arrogant views, but because he may not be seen for the dangerous fool he clearly is, despite JH quiet, measured and clever interviewing style that helped Byron expose himself as the myopic moron that most right minded people on this side of the Atlantic will judge him to be. My fear is that too many of our friends across the pond WANT to believe him and will allow the planet to sink into a decline that will eventually become irreversible. In the "world court" of future generations, I pray that such selfish and ignorant views AND individuals are ruthlessly exposed for what they almost inevitably are. Sadly by then, it will probably have been too late.
From: Peter J Curtis

I just listened to the interview with the American so-called 'environmental advisor' where he claimed climate change was a European conspiracy motivated by jealousy of American business success. It was very eye opening to see how advanced the denial of environmental reality is in the Bush administration. I just wish you had had a real climate expert and a government minister there to respond to the outrageous allegations made of David Kay and the EU; that an American can come over and so rubbish those who have been chosen to advise our own government without comeback from that government shows how far down the path of American domination we have slid. My question is, how can Tony Blair expect his recent public hand wringing about climate change have any credibility whatsoever while he allies himself with an administration that believes this claptrap and while he allows such patent rubbish to be broadcast unchallenged?
From: Luke Rendell
How appropriate given the advisor to George W Bush's comments on the Today programme this morning concerning global warming being in the imagination of European governments, that today's quote in The Very Curious Language of George W Bush calendar is " Americans have reached a great consensus about the protection on (sic) the environment."
I.E. do nothing about it and continue to burn the planet up for their own convenience.
From: Ric Brice

Well, the gates of Uncle Sam's asylum seem to be well and truly open now. John's interview with Mr Ebell showed the staggering deceit that is promoted by American commercial interests in stifling the potential for progress in tackling the ongoing problem of climate change. Mr Ebell ridiculed the majority of worldwide climatologists as being government sponsored. Why was it not mentioned where Mr Ebell's interests lay? - sponsorship by Exxon/Mobil, for example. Now that's independence for you!
From: Jon Hubbard

I listened to John Humphrys interviewing the American spokesman on climate change and at first I couldn't take it seriously. Then I realized that this man was speaking with total conviction and actually believed that European scientists use fantasy facts and figures to prove climate change. When John suggested that according to this argument the EU Commission was simply out to get the USA because it can't compete in the world business market, this man agreed that this was a fair assessment. The real danger to our planet is not fanatical terrorism but the equally fanatical blind self-interest of the USA government.
From: Evelyn greaves

I am writing in response to your interview with Dr. Ebell on the subject of climate change. As someone who is undertaking research in this area, I was extremely disturbed by the views he was purporting. The scientific evidence stands on its own merit and I do not consider this an appropriate place to present it. However, what I do take issue with is his claim that independent US scientists conclude that climate change is not occurring, contrary to their European counterparts who are supposedly less academically independent. The consensus view held by all scientists, even including those working in institutions directly funded by the US government, is that climate change is the most challenging problem our era and the only differences are on the exact magnitude of the substantive effect we will experience. In future, a more balanced representation of the scientific view, rather than that held by the purely economic constituency that Dr. Ebell represents, would be beneficial.
From: Dr. Jonathan Reid

Your presenter this morning was dumbstruck when this guy debunked the whole of the scientific community claiming that climate change didn't exist, and that they are all non-independent because they take government money.
Ebell slandered David King by name, and went on to say that he knew many "independent scientists" who denied the facts of climate change.
Your interviewer should have asked for some names of the "scientists" who supported the interviewee's opinion, rather than let him get away with saying that "most do".
Given more time, your interviewer could also have asked a basic scientific question: "What is the age of the Earth?" If his answer is "6000 years", for example, then we need look no further as to where he stands in relation to science.
The Climate Change policy of America sometimes sounds as if it's made on the assumption that the world is going to end anyway in the next 50 years, because it is set by people who believe the second coming is real soon now.
From: Julian Todd

When we discussed global warming issues at university some 35 years ago and one of the models showed an ever increasing speed up of the effects (the initial heating up raises the water vapour in the AP which acts as another greenhouse gas) some one joked 'well
The other models don't show anything like as rapid a result - the only scientific response is to experiment - carry on and find out! Can someone explain to the Yank how the sense of humour works - he obviously took it seriously.
We don't want to wait until the US links increased hurricanes with Kyoto
From: Barry Wrankmore

Congratulations to John Humphys on his interview this morning with Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming at the US Competitive Enterprise Institute. How calmly and adroitly Humphrys fed the ammunition and then watched as Ebell shot himself in the foot!
'Could it be,' Humphrys asked innocently, 'that you deny the evidence on global warming because the US is the biggest polluter?' 'Not so,' was Ebell's reply. 'It's because the US is the only country to have many independent scientists, not funded by the government, unlike the EU, Japan or Australia.' In other words, this whole theory has been put forward to level the global playing field for business and to hamper US competitiveness! So now we have it from the horse's mouth. It's just another plot to 'get America' and George Bush simply isn't going to be taken in by it.
From: Lesley Hampshire

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/print/international/climate_20041104.shtml

How high will it go?

Share this