Global Warming Debate: Refuting Common Arguments

[mheslep]

. I'm just not sure it's true. It doesn't actually make much sense given Bush's policies.

Much of the difference is simple technology advances and markets reacting to the energy prices - hybrid cars, better wind turbines, etc. Shale gas reserves discoveries depressing the price of natural gas allowing it to displace coal.

Regarding government policies and the major policies actually in place, causing change today (as opposed to what Obama say's he might do), I don't see that much difference:
- PTC. We had the energy production tax credit in place during Bush that pushed the US into becoming leading producer of wind generation in the world by '08, and is continuing to increase the lead.
- R&D. Obama has bumped energy research spending, but Bush was already several $B a year.
- Drilling. Bush / Congress talked up some offshore, but we never actually saw any (new).
- Nuclear. Down the road effects only. No current effect from either administration. Bush leaned in favor, Obama leaning against.