I am not a big fan of President George W. Bush, and I don’t understand German politics well enough to form an opinion on Chancellor Angela Merkel. But I do wonder which of the two is more realistic in their policy on climate control.
In a speech at the White House on April 16th, 2008, President Bush discussed climate change. As usual, he was derided for his remarks whe he said –
Climate change involves complicated science and generates vigorous debate. Many are concerned about the effect of climate change on our environment. Many are concerned about the effect of climate change policies on our economy. I share these concerns, and I believe they can be sensibly reconciled.
In an article in the mass-circulation tabloid Bild, Merkel said that she will not approve any European Union climate rules “that endanger jobs or investments in Germany.”
I agree with Bush – climate change is complicated science. And I believe Merkel when she says she opposes climate rules which would hurt the German economy. After all, there will be elections next year. Merkel is a scientist with a degree in physics from a good university. Bush, by any stretch of the imagination, is not a scientist. But both are politicians. Bush has been elected as President twice, while Merkel heads a coalition government which may not survive next years national elections. Some might consider Bush to be the more successful politician, but few would say he is smarter. Merkel, with her comments seemingly favoring the economy over the environment, sounds a little like Bush these days. But no, I don’t believe Bush is smarter than Merkel. But I do believe he has been more consistent.
Brian's Blog 
Most assessments of climate change, global warming, or whatever one likes to call it, are very conservative (it‘s happening faster than most serious models predict). I remember what Helmut Kohl said when told German reunification was going to cost about 16 billion, or so (I was in Germany then). Basically he said they should do it now…now, before it costs them 30 billion. This is how it is with climate change. There is no painless way to address it, but what is certain is it will be more painful later. There are many ways to spin climate change if one stands to benefit (Cui Bono) from doing so. For me, the argument is over. The evidence is everywhere, and solid. We can debate what has or is causing it, but I don’t take “deniers” seriously anymore. President Bush being consistent doesn’t much interest me, I don’t think he was ever serious about this issue. At some time, we will hit a tipping point, if we haven’t already, and economies will not really be the largest concerns. Starvation in some areas and shifting world populations will be, along with environmental concerns. Competing for more scarce resources will be larger issues. We either pay now or we pay later. On this issue, I imagine Ms. Merkel is the sharper tool.