| Bush's new 2025 climate change strategy |
|
By Laura Gibson Bush’s legacy: Sceptics will argue that Bush’s mid April announcement aimed at stopping the growth of US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2025 is a “too little, too late” attempt to rescue his legacy from going down as the President who ignored climate change. Others suggest, however, that his speech reflects the administration’s shifting stance in the past eighteen months and represents a willingness to engage more actively with the issue. The President’s announcement came as debate about climate change intensifies in Washington in the lead up to the Paris meeting where representatives of the world’s major economies will gather once again to discuss climate change. His speech, delivered on the afternoon of 16th April, was intended to coincide with these developments to further “advance discussions both at home and abroad” on this matter.1 In the Rose Garden: Bush opened by acknowledging the concerns of many Americans about the impact climate change will have on the US economy. However, he was quick to defend how his administration has dealt with the serious issue of climate change, describing it as “a rational, balanced approach”.2 Refusing to sign the Kyoto agreement in 1997 was, he implied, part of this approach since the Protocol’s GHG reductions would have limited American economic growth and forced jobs abroad while permitting other developing nations, such as China and India, to continue increasing their own emissions. The resolution opposing Kyoto was passed in Congress by a 95 to nothing vote.3 After rejecting Kyoto, the US began establishing its own (some might call them haphazard) emissions reduction targets. The first one came in 2002 when Bush proposed reducing US GHG intensity by 18% through 2012. In this latest speech, he congratulated the US for remaining on track to meet this goal, even as the US economy has grown by 17%.4 He also expressed enthusiasm for an alternative international process to Kyoto where the US works closely with the G8 on tackling climate change. The Paris meeting represents a milestone is pushing forward with this approach. Achieving the latest goal of stopping the growth of GHG emissions depends, he declared, on continuing strong policy and technology advances.5 Belief in the importance of advancing technology lies at the heart of Bush’s climate change initiative. Plans have already been laid to invest billions of dollars in next generation nuclear energy technologies, in funding research for clean coal and into developing renewables. Moreover, through a series of agreements with Congress, more than $40 billion will shortly be available as loan guarantees to support investments that will “avoid, reduce, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions or air pollutants”.6 Bush admitted, however, that if the US was to meet his new 2025 goal, more would have to be done in the power generation sector so that emissions peak in the next ten to fifteen years but decline thereafter. Once again, technologies were cited as the solution. In the President’s opinion, recent court legislation based on The Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act was explicitly not the solution to climate change challenges within the US. He directed criticism in particular at a Supreme Court decision to apply the thirty-year-old Clean Air Act to regulating present day GHG emissions from vehicles. This decision, and other similar rulings, threatened to stretch the laws beyond their original intent and Bush warned they could override those programs just adopted by Congress. His sentiments on the matter were, he stated, in line with those of Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell who fears such rulings will result in “a glorious mess”.7 He continued to question the authority of unelected judges and regulators to make decisions that so widely affect the American people. Protecting the American people from being financially burdened with the full cost necessary to perhaps tackle climate change remains a priority for Bush. For him, sharply increasing gasoline prices, home heating bills for American families and the cost of energy for American businesses is the wrong way forward. The right way is to “adopt policies that spur investment in the new technologies needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more cost-effectively in the longer term without placing unreasonable burdens on American consumers and workers in the short term”.8 Incentives, rather than deterrents, are the ‘right’ path for Bush. Incentives that are carbon weighted and take into account the US nation’s energy security needs, that are technology neutral and are long lasting to encourage investment and build an infrastructure. Following this strategy will, Bush argues, put America on an ambitious new track for greenhouse gas reductions. However, he was quick to draw attention to the necessity of global cooperation since even if the US reduced its GHG emissions to zero tomorrow, only a minor dent in the problem would be made if other economies continue emitting at their present rate. His remarks come in light of a report by the University of California team, scheduled for publication in next month’s Journal of Environment Economics and Management, which suggests that China’s GHG emissions have been grossly underestimated and it has probably already overtaken the US as the world’s number one emitter.9 The Rose Garden speech ended with an appeal for all nations to embark on a “global clean energy revolution”.10 Planting roots for the future: The Rose Garden speech might characterize a fresh approach to climate change by the White House, yet it failed once again to establish new roots for tackling climate change, falling well short of mandatory emissions cap legislation, favoured by McCain, Obama and Clinton. Republican Edward Markey, said Bush's remarks showed that "he has no intention of cooperating" to get climate legislation passed this year and "He's basically saying take two aspirins and call President Obama, Clinton or McCain next January".11 Moreover, Senate Democrats and environmentalists believe the president's plan would allow continued growth of GHGs for the next two decades. The general consensus is that in spite of Bush’s goal for 2025, no significant developments to tackle climate change will be implemented until his successor takes office on January 20 next year. What is clear is that when his successor does take over, the American people should be prepared for fairly immediate changes in how the US proceeds with tackling climate change. All three presidential contenders are supporters of a mandatory called cap-and-trade system to reduce GHG emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Republican McCain has been a co-sponsor of mandatory emissions cap legislation and Democratic candidates Obama and Clinton have both said they would make binding emissions reduction requirements a top priority. Those companies and organizations that are already working towards reducing their GHG emissions will be best placed to avoid the shocks that any new legislation will bring and will be able to take advantage of accompanying incentives under the new administration.
1-8http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/04/20080416-6.html |