Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors
Gristmill

Same as it ever was

Thoughts on Bush's latest speech on climate change

Posted by David Roberts at 11:48 AM on 16 Apr 2008

The whole media world is in a frenzy, yet again, over a Bush speech on climate change. A new strategy! An effort to secure a legacy! Exciting new principles and goals! Even my own bosses are pressing me to come up with a thoughtful reaction.

Sigh.

I hate to be the party-pooper. But we've been here before. How many times does Lucy expect us to try to kick this football?

Here are the three things you need to know about Bush's speech -- the same three things you needed to know about his previous speeches on the subject:

  1. Bush's speech is not meant to advance serious efforts to address climate change, but to thwart the efforts of others. This has been true of all three speeches he's given -- see Dan Froomkin on this. This time around, it's meant to thwart Congressional Democrats, who show every sign of being on the verge of passing a carbon cap-and-trade bill.
  2. The targets Bush does announce would doom the planet. Last time around it was improving the "carbon intensity" of the economy -- that is, releasing less CO2 per unit of GDP, even though total CO2 would continue rising. This time around, it's "halting the growth" of U.S. emissions by 2025. By way of contrast, international folks are pushing for a peak in global emissions by 2020. If U.S. emissions keep rising until 2025 -- and that's what Bush is calling for, rising CO2 emissions for another 17 years -- efforts to keep global CO2 levels below 450ppm, or even 550ppm, are futile, and unthinkable human misery lies on the horizon.
  3. The Republican Party will not accept even the weak initiatives Bush lays out. This piece in Roll Call ($ub. req'd) tells the story:
    Years after President Bush torpedoed the Kyoto global warming treaty, he is expected to outline principles this afternoon for passing legislation to reduce carbon emissions, but it's unclear how much support he will find among Congressional Republicans.

For those who care about the details, I'll address specific parts of the speech beneath the fold.

In 2002, I announced our first step: to reduce America's greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent through 2012. I am pleased to say that we remain on track to meet this goal even as our economy has grown 17 percent.

Once more, from the top: greenhouse gas intensity has been improving in developed economy for decades. It happens automatically, through natural improvements in efficiency. The Bush administration has nothing to do with it. This is a vintage Bush scam.

So the United States has launched, and the G8 has embraced, a new process that brings together the countries responsible for most of the world's emissions.

It is laughable to say the G8 has "embraced" Bush's farcical Major Economies meetings (his previous attempt to thwart serious action). They have accepted it because they have no choice.

Today, I am announcing a new national goal: to stop the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.

See above. Another way of putting this is: I am announcing that we will keep emitting more and more CO2 for the next 17 years. If the U.S. commits to this path, reaching the GHG targets scientists say are necessary for averting catastrophe will be impossible.

As part of this strategy, we worked with Congress to pass energy legislation that specifies a new fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and requires fuel producers to supply at least 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022.

The Bush administration fought this energy bill tooth and nail, and eventually succeeded in stripping the most ambitious elements out of it. Now it's claiming credit. It is to puke.

By doing so, we will reduce emission levels in the power sector well below where they were projected to be when we first announced our climate strategy in 2002. There are a number of ways to achieve these reductions, but all responsible approaches depend on accelerating the development and deployment of new technologies.

Reports have it that Bush initially planned to announce a cap-and-trade proposal that would apply only to the power sector -- a pathetically unambitious measure. But even that prompted revolt among Republicans, so it got stripped out, leaving the hopeless vagueness above.

Some courts are taking laws written more than 30 years ago to primarily address local and regional environmental effects, and applying them to global climate change. The Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate change. For example, under a Supreme Court decision last year, the Clean Air Act could be applied to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. ... Decisions with such far-reaching impact should not be left to unelected regulators and judges.

Let's be clear what's happening here: the Bush administration is openly flipping a bird at the Supreme Court. Since the court's decision, it has refused to develop regulations at EPA, per the court's command. This is of a piece with this executive branch's disregard for separation of powers.

Now watch this. In his principles for climate legislation, he says this:

The wrong way is to jeopardize our energy and economic security by abandoning nuclear power and our Nation's huge reserves of coal. The right way is to promote more emission-free nuclear power and encourage the investments necessary to produce electricity from coal without releasing carbon into the air.

Then, a mere few paragraphs later, he says:

Second, the incentive should be technology-neutral because the government should not be picking winners and losers in this emerging market.

Got that? Me neither.

The "principles" amount to this: we should put no restraints on corporations; we should only offer them subsidies, er, "incentives." This is the latest in right-wing thinking on climate change.

Like I said, there's nothing new in this speech. It's meant to thwart real efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. It's meant to gum up the international process. It's meant to protect corporate contributors from regulatory constraints. It will doom the planet to out of control heating and untold misery.

It's the same old thing: a farce. I really, really wish the media would stop treating it like anything else.

Using Congress as a stalling tactic

It's telling that the Bush Administration -- the gang that has been grabbing power for the executive branch since Day One -- says that only Congress can deal with climate change policy.  Seems like a total delaying tactic to me.  The Bush gang knows that nothing is going to happen in this Congress, so they try to push the responsibility to them.

The Bush logic:  it's OK for unelected bureaucrats in the Office of the Legal Council to legalize torture or for unelected bureaucrats in the Dept of the Interior to allow destruction of West Virginia wilderness via mountaintop mining, but bureaucrats must not do anything to slow climate change.

bad joke

How does Bush spell renewable?

Re-nuclear.

"technology-neutral"

Technology-neutral: large centralized nuclear power plants.  

hits the nail on the head

Dave,

You're exactly right on this. This is the speech I've actually been fearing for quite some time.

What is of almost greater concern to me is that the Republicans who are fighting what would have been a  completely limp approach are still going to be in the Senate in 2009 and will be very likely to throw up as many parliamentary roadblocks as possible (see  Coburn, Tom) regardless of who is elected in November.  

This is just a reminder that we're not nearly as close to federal action as we need to be.

And another 15+ years of emissions growth? As you say, that'd be nothing short of a disaster.

My small hope...

Is that the long term damage Bush is doing to his political party exceeds the long-term damage he's doing to the planet.

Engaging Republicans in climate change

It is easy to score comedy points on our President's latest climate mitigation mumbling, but how best advance the ball?

Republicans typically lead with the economy and the party line is to frame this as a debate between cheap (dirty) energy and expensive clean energy.  Nice sound bite, wrong facts.

The debate is between expensive dirty energy and clean cheap energy.  The rising cost of fossil fuels without improved efficiency is strangling the economy. The sub-prime mortgage crises is not the only thing tanking the U.S. economy.  Rising costs of energy services are hammering everyone.

Can the economy afford to keep increasing the fossil fuel it burns for the next 17 years?  Whomever leads the way to reducing energy costs will gain an inside track to the White House.

Frame the issue for what it is.  Reducing GHG emissions is an economic imperative.

Tom Casten, Chair, Recycled Energy Development LLC

The great stratagizer

What else would you expect from the man who brought you the war in Iraq. By the way we just spent a trillion dollars and over 4000 lives in order to hand that country over to Iraq. The most radical moslem country in the middle east.

This is the man you need to fix your global warming problem.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

Sigh

Talking Heads in my head all night...

George?

Wait hes still alive?

White House Green Wash

You nailed it.

The Bush plan has always been to prevent action to stave off catastrophic climate change.

What they're trying to do now is tip the discussion in their direction, toward their view of a "balanced" solution -- which is to do nothing, to continue to increase carbon emissions until Generation X starts to collect social security.

Because they know now the writing's on the wall; a Democratic President and Congress are poised to act. They have to continue to do the bidding of Exxon until the day they leave office.

At which time, I imagine George W. Bush will be named a director on Exxon's board.

http://scorpionbowl.blogspot.com/2008/04/white-house-gree ...

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