Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Bush to world: Nothing up my sleeve

Bush's climate summit promises no change in U.S. stance

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 10:38 AM on 24 Sep 2007

bullwinkle1.jpgBush may be hosting a climate summit this week, but "what he will not do, officials said, is chart any shift in policies." Specifically, the Washington Post reports:

Top Bush administration officials said the president is not planning to alter his opposition to mandatory limits on greenhouse gases or to stray from his emphasis on promoting new technologies, especially for nuclear power and for the storage of carbon dioxide produced by coal plants.

This is straight from the Frank Luntz playbook on how to seem like you care about the climate when you don't: Technology, technology, technology. Yada. Yada. Yada. Delay, delay, delay.

Bush is no climate magician. He will not be pulling a rabbit out of a hat this week. Bush has nothing up his sleeve -- you can't solve the climate problem without mandatory limits.

James Connaughton, head of the president's Council on Environmental Quality, said Bush's goal is to aim for a "solid handoff to the next president, regardless of party." Yeah, just like Iraq. Run out the clock.

The article did offer one (bizarre) new line of argument -- why the administration opposes a cap-and-trade system:

The White House will oppose anything that would "make Granny pay 20 percent more for electricity" if that money were to "go to pay for more efficiency in China," Connaughton said, questioning whether "a woman on fixed income in Ohio should pay for carbon dioxide reductions in the oil sector."

Now that is world-class doubletalk. First off, this gets the point of trading exactly backwards. If there are cheap tons to be purchased in China, then that avoids the need to jack up Granny's electric bill. And as for domestic trading, "a woman on fixed income in Ohio" would not and should not "pay for carbon dioxide reductions in the oil sector." Connaughton has got that backwards, too -- the oil sector would typically pay Granny to use her electricity more efficiently, or possibly to buy green power.

But in any case, this is just an argument for auctioning the permits and using the revenues to lower Granny's taxes, so that on net, if her electricity does become more expensive -- and her utility does not help her become more efficient -- her net costs will still be zero.

It will be sad if the U.S. media gives Bush any positive media coverage for this "summit." This is no summit. It is a nadir -- the rock bottom in cynicism.

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.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks