One Percent Risk and Climate Change

Much has been written about the Bush/Cheney "One Percent Doctrine" and you can read oodles about it if you care to. Basically, the concept is that if there is a 1% chance of something bad happening from a purported threat, action must be taken to neutralize it.

So why haven't they applied this type of thinking to climate change? The chance that something bad is going to happen seems to be a lot higher than 1 in 100. But they do nothing.

I think the reason is twofold. First, there is no benefit to the wealthy from remedying climate change. In fact, of all the people who would have to change their lifestyles, the people who build mega-mansions to house a family of three and who have fourth and fifth homes would have to change their ways. Those are Bush's peeps.

Second, there is nobody to kill, no defense contractors to enrichen, and Blackwater isn't going to make any money off it. 90% of the Bush track record revolves around either killing people or tax cuts; if he can't do one or the other, then he isn't interested, as anyone who lives along the Gulf Coast can testify to.

Anyway, George McGovern has an op-ed in today's Washington Post as to why Bush and Cheney must be impeached. It's worth a read.