In an article titled “Bush Outlines Goals to Fight Climate Change“, President Bush today called for “halting the growth” of greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. However:

Bush, who leaves office in nine months, offered no specific proposals in the address.

But he laid out a framework for future measures he said would balance the need to curb carbon emissions blamed for increasing global temperatures, with protecting the U.S. economy.

So, don’t harm business. balance the ecological disaster against the economy. Right. Why? Well, because:

“The wrong way is to unilaterally impose regulatory costs that put American businesses at a disadvantage with their competitors abroad, which would simply drive American jobs overseas and increase emissions there,” he [Bush] said.

The devil is in the details, dear reader. When government–especially the Bush Administration–wants to appease, they make deliberate use of soft-core phrases like “wisely balance economic and environmental needs”, or “reduce emissions by 20xx”, or . Or worse, create fear by threatening that governments cracking down on pollution too hard will cause a “regulatory train wreck.” It’ll cause undue hardship, inconvenience, be “bad for business.”

What this really means–what it almost always means–is that when push comes to shove, corporations get the nod over human and ecological health. You lose, the environment degrades further, corporate and monied interests win.

There’s an inconvenient truth that bears retelling, to everyone you know: Unless we effect radical, immediate change, we’re almost certainly screwed. While we drive our cars another day, build a few dozen more skyscrapers, buy even more crap from Southeast Asia (that is to say, IKEA, Wal-Mart and most other chain stores) and feel that uncomfortable twinge on the edge of our awareness, the wheel is turning. The damage ratchets another notch towards irreversibility, due to our unwillingness to endure…inconvenience.