Bush's 'new climate strategy'

Shockingly, it's the same as the old climate strategy

Posted by David Roberts at 10:43 AM on 31 May 2007

Read more about: climate | George Bush | politics | international politics

Today's headlines are full of the news that President Bush is "unveiling a new climate strategy." If your immediate reaction is cynicism, well ... looks like you learned something over the last seven years. Let's look a little closer.

In a speech today, Bush said he wants to convene a series of meetings of the 15 major GHG emitting countries to hammer out "global emissions goals."

To give credit where it's due, there is considerable symbolic significance to the news that the U.S. is shifting from a stance of truculent foot-dragging to active engagement. Perhaps he's desperate for a PR boost, or perhaps he's just realized the pressure is too great to keep fighting directly, but for whatever reason, Bush's rhetorical shift sends a welcome if long overdue signal. Unfortunately, the shift is only rhetorical.

Take the series of meetings. You'll recall that the international community has already been holding a series of meetings on climate change, ever since 1995, under the unwieldy rubric of Conferences of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Just last November, COP-11 was held in Montreal. It was marked, as the previous COP meetings have been, by U.S. intransigence.

The G8 summits have struggled to address climate change as well. Indeed, Tony Blair tried to make climate change a top agenda item for 2005's G8 summit; he even flew to D.C. to beg for Bush's support. But that summit was marked by ... U.S. intransigence.

Then there was the 2005 Davos World Economic Forum, where Blair again begged Bush to move on climate change. Again ... intransigence. And that's not all. Virtually every international summit or meeting of the last few years has been marked by urgent concern over climate change and a refusal by the U.S. to engage in good-faith efforts to tackle it.

So what will be different about these meetings? Here's a couple of key facts to keep in mind:

The meetings will be convened by the U.S. and held on U.S. territory; the U.S. will control the agenda.
Merkel and Blair want the G8 countries to commit to immediate action; the talks Bush proposes will run through to the end of 2009. That's a lot of talk on a subject that's been talked to death.
The U.S. has strongly and unambiguously rejected the emission targets agreed to by the other developed nations (~50% cuts from 1990 levels by 2050). That's why the meetings are about emissions goals rather than targets. The difference? Goals are voluntary. The U.S. under Bush will never agree to hard targets or mandates.
There's great significance to the fact that Bush wants the "top 15 GHG emitters" at the meetings. That means he won't get any commitments that aren't agreed to by China and India, which are among the only other nations to refuse to agree to binding targets. Two things are accomplished by setting things up so that China and India have veto power over a final agreement: 1) you won't get any binding targets, and 2) you establish that China and India are obligated to pledge GHG reductions equal to the U.S. and other developed countries, despite the fact that the developed countries are responsible for the vast bulk of the GHG already in the atmosphere, and still far exceed China and India in per-capita emissions. The last thing Bush wants is for the world to agree that the developed countries owe a greater commitment based on economic and social justice concerns.
Judging by Bush's speech, one of his principal goals is to "eliminate tariffs on clean energy technologies." In plain English, that means giving U.S. companies favorable trade deals to sell "clean coal" and nuclear technology to developing countries. This is something Bush's corporate backers have long wanted; climate change is a way to sell it. I'm guessing Bush will not be proposing to remove any U.S. tariffs, like, say, the one on sugar-cane ethanol from Brazil.

As you can see -- and as you would expect -- this announcement from Bush is not a genuine change of heart on climate change. The U.S. still will not agree to any emission reduction targets. It will not agree that the developed countries bear primary responsibility for climate change. It will not sign on to the growing consensus among developed nations about how to tackle the problem

This announcement is an attempt to run out the clock on the Bush administration without committing to anything but sweetheart deals for corporate backers.

Same as it ever was.

For story: Bush's 'new climate strategy'
10 Comments | Post a Comment

Why Bush is Great

This represents why Bush is great -- he will not give in to the phoneys who are trying to tax the world with phoney science and hoaxes.

The Europeans, terrorists, Russians and Chinese would like nothing better than to cripple the American economy and impose their fascist ways on the free American middle class.

Bush is the true leader of Freedom.

Possibly the best Alternative Energy blog I read: New Energy and Fuel

by jabailo at 12:06 PM on 31 May 2007

Why the cynicism on trade liberalization?

David, I'm not here to defend the President's strategy, but there is actually a lot of international interest in liberalising trade in environmental goods and services (EG&S). Indeed, apart from the discussions on fish subsidies (which, like those on EG&S have been on-going in the WTO since the end of 2001), the initiative on EG&S is one of the few specifically "environmental" outcomes that could emerge out of the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations.

And the goods on the list being negotiated are not primarily for "clean" coal, if at all. They include necessary things, like air-quality monitoring instruments, particulate filters, booms for cleaning up oil spills. It always amazed me that this initiative seems to have remained almost entirely off the radar screen of environmental groups.

Here's a handy backgrounder, by the way (written by yours truly a couple of years ago).

These are only my personal opinions.

by Ron Steenblik at 12:21 PM on 31 May 2007

kicking our butts

On display, in the rejection this week of G8/EU climate policy positions, in the utterly bizarre sophistry from NASA Administrator Griffin, and in Bush's speech today, is well thought-out strategic communications plan to simultaneously reinforce the distrust of international agreements as unfair, reinforce doubt about human responsibility for climate change, and yet reinforce American leadership to address it. Nowhere in sight is a coordinated response from dysfunctional environmental and social justice communities. No one is connecting the dots, calling them out, exposing their strategy. No one is raising any kind of ruckus. The only conclusion to draw is that thee is no climate movement in this country, just an inchoate choir content to delude ourselves about progress through our daily fix of self-selected, self-reinforcing RSS feeds. Where is the coordinated action? Where is the "movement's" rapid response team? Where is the full-page ad in tomorrows WSJ screaming "HOW DARE YOU, PRESIDENT BUSH!" signed by real leaders? We are being totally outflanked.

by wedjr at 12:24 PM on 31 May 2007

Footnote

Rereading, I realize I didn't tie my previous remarks very closely to David's reference to liberalizing trade in "clean energy technology".

Among the goods included on the draft lists for accellerated trade liberalization at the WTO are things like solar cells, wind turbines, solar water heaters, LCD lights, ...

You'd be surprised how high import tariffs are on things like solar water heaters -- even (indeed, especially) in countries with sunny climates.

These are only my personal opinions.

by Ron Steenblik at 12:25 PM on 31 May 2007
[ Parent ]

Not cynical enough by half

The Bush goal is to lock in his horrific policies for as long as possible after he and his minions are out of office. Consistent with that, he really does want a treaty in place before he leaves -- the weakest possible one, set up so that a future administration will have a hard time improving the situation very quickly.

A related example of this is locking the moon/Mars stuff into the budget while gutting the Earth observation missions. This is damage that will take years to reverse. While we're on this subject, I think it's an excellent litmus test for the Dems. Will they be able to produce a NASA budget that properly funds the satellites and reduces the interplanetary stuff to the small-scale research level where it belongs? Unfortunately, as it stands now I'm going to have to predict that they they'll give Bush most of what he wants this year and next.

They're also trying to lock in a permanent war on terror, but that's another subject.

by Steve Bloom at 12:44 PM on 31 May 2007

Why can the U.S. never follow?

There are plenty of climate strategies and initiatives floating around, so why can't Bush just follow for once, instead of always having to lead? Does everything have to be on the United States' terms, and controlled by them?

I think this sums it up best:

Tony Juniper, the head of Friends of the Earth, said: "This is a deliberate and carefully crafted attempt to derail any prospect of a climate change agreement (at the G8 summit) in Germany next week. [Mr Bush] is trying to destroy the prospect of that getting anywhere by announcing his own parallel process with very vaguely expressed objectives ... Basically we should see this as a delaying tactic to keep the climate change issue off his back in terms of any real decisions until he leaves office (in early 2009)."

Oh well, I guess, to look on the bright side, it's better than nothing.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

by tico89 at 4:10 PM on 31 May 2007

Bush Aced...

looks like Bush aced the Climate Changers...he's calling...get everyone here on the table and lay their cards out.

Possibly the best Alternative Energy blog I read: New Energy and Fuel

by jabailo at 1:02 AM on 01 Jun 2007

I need an analogy here

You establish that China and India are obligated to pledge GHG reductions equal to the U.S. and other developed countries, despite the fact that the developed countries are responsible for the vast bulk of the GHG already in the atmosphere, and still far exceed China and India in per-capita emissions.

I would like an analogy from sports or the schoolyard to illustrate to my friends why the waiting-on-China-and-India game is not cool. My imagination is failing me. Any suggestions?

by pcarbo at 2:27 PM on 01 Jun 2007

Bob Park, always acerbically on target

WHAT'S NEW
Robert L. Park Friday, 1 Jun 07 Washington, DC
1. CLIMATE CHANGE: BUSH PROPOSES A NEW APPROACH - SET GOALS.
President Bush rejected the Kyoto treaty six years ago, saying it would "harm our economy." "Climate change" did not show up in Bush's vocabulary until his 2007 State-of-the-Union address. Yesterday, however, pressured to take action, he trotted out his "new international climate change framework," declaring "the United States takes this issue seriously." Other leaders at next week's G-8 summit, who are leaning toward a bold German plan to reduce greenhouse emissions 50% by 2050, are unlikely to be impressed. The plan outlined by the White House is classic Bush: it contained no concrete targets or dates, no enforcement mechanism, no penalties for noncompliance, and it wouldn't take effect until four years after Bush leaves office.
2. WHAT CLIMATE PROBLEM? NASA HEAD IS ON A DIFFERENT PLANET.
Just two hours before the President's remarks, Michael Griffin, the man Bush picked to head the agency charged with collecting climate change data, was interviewed on National Public Radio. He defended cuts in programs to monitor climate change: It frees resources for a manned moon base, and a new crew transportation vehicle to take astronauts to the Moon, Mars and the space station. He saw no need to take action against global warming. "Who has the privilege of deciding that this is the best climate for all other human beings," he asked? Just two months ago the IPCC report detailed the enormous cost of global warming on human life. Where has he been?
...
THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND.
Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the University of Maryland, but they should be.
---
Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.bobpark.org

Save your community: Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year.

by JMG at 3:27 PM on 01 Jun 2007

Fact-check

Hi
Let's not underestimate the number of international meetings that have actually occurred on climate change. The most recent COP was #12, and it was held in Nairobi last November. Of course, that doesn't even account for the technical meetings, which occur at a rate of at least 4 a year. Not sure if all these meetings are helping, but it does seem arrogant to propose a whole new series of them will.

by kbrash at 1:07 PM on 18 Jul 2007

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.