Thoughts on Bush's alleged new climate policy

What to expect.

Posted by David Roberts at 1:01 AM on 18 Sep 2006

So, rumor's in the air about a new Bush climate policy. As Bart says, this is no doubt an authorized leak and, like everything the Bush administration does, done with politics in mind.

I imagine Rove sees the Gore cloud gathering on the horizon and wants to blow it away with some hot air before it gets too big.

How? By stealing Gore's signature issue. It's exactly what Turdblossom did in the 2000 election: Bush's promise to regulate CO2 was nothing but a successful bid to take the issue off the table, to dilute media and voter attention (same with "compassionate conservatism"). It immunized Bush.

Now Rove is trying to immunize the party, by changing its stance on global warming from "No!" to "blah blah blah." Voters understand No, and on an issue like this they'll come to see it as obstructionist. But they don't really follow the blah blah blah. They'll get the impression that both parties are addressing the issue; then it's six of one half dozen the other.

Will it work? Let's just say the last six years have encouraged me never to underestimate the charlatans or overestimate the voting public.

Now, let's turn to prediction. If it's true that Bush will announce a big climate plan, here's what I expect will be in it, from most to least likely:

Definitely

Subsidies out the ying-yang, mainly for ethanol, nuclear, and clean coal/sequestration.
Hydrogen.
Much talk of tech-sharing with developing nations, in the vein of the Asia-Pacific pact, as cover for favorable trade deals.

Probably

A concession that global warming is taking place coupled with the willfully ignorant claim that we don't know whether it's human-caused or natural.
The phrase "safe, clean nuclear power," with a bogus "zero greenhouse emissions" claim thrown in.
Big talk about flex-fuel cars, perhaps with some weakish regulations and a symbolic gesture -- say, shifting some portion of the federal fleet to hybrids by 2106.
A nod to hybrids, with some research subsidies for batteries.
A few pennies to solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal.
A misleading statistic about "carbon intensity"; no mention of our total share of world emissions.

Would be a big deal

A CO2 cap-and-trade program.
Penalties, taxes, or even removal of subsidies for oil companies.
Serious new across-the-board energy-efficiency standards.
A more-than-symbolic push for plug-in hybrids.

Will never happen

The best policy of all: a carbon tax.

Fun drinking game!

Every time Bush says the word "technology" or "technologies," take a shot. Be sure to use a designated driver.

(PS, if Bush had done this earlier he might have saved Tony Blair's ass. But that's never really been a priority, has it?)

For story: Thoughts on Bush's alleged new climate policy
7 Comments | Post a Comment

Why Before November?

Besides the upcoming U.S. midterm elections there is another reason why the Bush administration would want to announce a policy change on global warming, if they make one, before November. The next United Nations Climate Change Conference is going to be held in Nairobi, Kenya November 6-17. At last year's conference in Montreal, the U.S. played an obstructionist role when the subject of what to do to reduce emissions post-Kyoto (i.e. after the 2008 to 2012 commitment period) came up. If there is going to be a policy change, the U.S. would want to signal it before the UN meeting.

It is good to be very skeptical of the motivations of the Bush administration. However it may be that Bush's most important constituency, the business community, is divided on the global warming issue. The fossil fuel industry is strongly opposed to regulating greenhouse gases and much of the rest of industry accepts the fact that regulations to reduce greenhouse gases are inevitable. The part of industry that thinks regulations are coming would probably prefer to see them come under Bush who would be more sympathetic to them than would a possible Democratic President in 2009.

by Patrick Kennedy at 10:04 AM on 18 Sep 2006

Black Gold

Yes, Pat, I agree.

President Gore will be bad for the fossil fuel business, including oil and gas. Rove needs the message that there are Republican alternatives on all issues.

The White House focus is on Iran and the future price of Texas Tea. Pushing "carbon-free" ethanol will help the message, "we don't need no stinkin' Iranian oil".

I always wondered how ordinary Germans were so unaware of the fascists until it is too late.

by sunflower at 10:37 AM on 18 Sep 2006

Strange Response from White House

David-

FYI, another indicator that something is going to happen on energy is the fact that after 6 years of writing to the White House on their ridiculous energy policy choices (with not one single response that I can recall) lo and behold 10 days ago I get a letter from the White House. The letter is all about Bush and energy policy and how great he is and will be in the future on promoting "cleaner, less expensive, and more reliable energy sources" and energy security issues (aka building more clean coal and nuclear power plants).

It's signed by a Darren K. Kipp, special assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Correspondence. He suggest that I visit whitehouse.gov/infocus/energy/ for more information.

I wonder how many others out there got this form letter?

John Bailey http://www.newrules.org/

by johnilsr at 2:20 PM on 18 Sep 2006

Interesting

John, any chance you have an electronic copy? Or could scan and send to me?

grist.org

by David Roberts at 2:36 PM on 18 Sep 2006

More razzle-dazzle, sleight of hand

I briefly perused the above site before I became so outraged by its blatant & willful ignorance, that I had to leave. Unfortunately, some of it "sounds" like sense, if you don't know much (or care much) about science, as is the case for a great many Americans.

In a nutshell,
$2 BILLION to Big Coal, but only $44 million to wind (or to make the point clearer, wind gets 2.22% of what coal gets).

Exploitation of the deep water oil reserves rumored to be in the Gulf - which will take years to develop, cost lots of money (yours & mine in subsidies), and to hell with any risks involved (to human safety, to the environment)

Easing restrictions on refinery-building

AND - NUCLEAR, NUCLEAR, NUCLEAR! Safe?!? and affordable?!?, pollution free, no green house gases, blah, blah, blah. Sounds OK on paper but Nuclear is Big Business and Big Business is about profits and cost-cutting and usually quite unethical behavior. And the much touted Yucca Mountain site for storage is not as safe and certain as is claimed.

So it seems that Mr Roberts is right on the Definitely, mainly right on the Probably and as for any real vision or leadership in the next 2 categories, he is again, sadly, on the mark.

I'm sending my copy of The Curve of Blinding Energy by John McPhee to the White House - it's a short book, an easy read for our intellectually challenged president who obviously has no idea just how dangerous nuclear can be in America. (the fact that the Twin Towers is mentioned more than once as a possible terrorist target or as a measure of scale back in 1975? is eerie and might just get his attention)

Other than that, I hope people will not be fooled by this insincere bid for the votes of the growing numbers of environmentally concerned citizens and will vote for their planet.

by katwin24 at 3:10 AM on 19 Sep 2006

Bush: From Bobo to Bobo

When I was a wee-lad, one of the worst possible epithets you could throw at a peer was to call their clothes "Bobo". It meant that the wearer of said no-name garment was either too poor or too behind-the-times to have any fashion sense. In my day, when someone called your shoes "bobos", it knocked you down the cultural latter...to one step above dweeb.

Now the term Bobo is used to define a whole new demographic - the 'bourgeois bohemians' - encompassing upper-income, cosmopolitan technorati seeking enlightenment at the bottom of a green-tea latte (...and the GristMill).

Whatever the motivation, we're glad Bush has gone from Bobo (1980's) to Bobo (2006)...and may soon offer something resembling a coherent national energy policy that addresses our impending climate crisis. (We'll keep our fingers crossed).

Network for New Energy Choices www.NewEnergyChoices.org

by Chris Cooper at 11:12 AM on 19 Sep 2006

sent it to you yesterday

David-
I scanned it and sent it to you by e-mail yesterday.
jb

John Bailey http://www.newrules.org/

by johnilsr at 12:33 PM on 20 Sep 2006
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.