Yesterday President Bush unveiled his “new” plan for addressing climate change in a Rose Garden speech that seemed to most rather flimsy and too-little-too-late. His plan, in essence, continues what he called a “a rational, balanced approach to these serious challenges.”
The crux of the “new” plan is to “stop the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.” But Bush spent more time explaining how not to deal with the issue of climate change than outlining a real plan for addressing major challenges. He reiterated his opposition to the use of the Clean Air Act and Endangered Species Act to control emissions because they were “never meant to regulate global climate.” He also came out against “impose(ing) regulatory costs,” “abandoning nuclear power,” sharply increase(ing) gasoline prices,” “raise(ing) taxes, duplicate(ing) mandates, or demand(ing) sudden and drastic emissions cuts.” So, where then is the meat of the proposal that is going to result in drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 (10 years after the 2015 recommendation set out by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)?
The sad answer is that there is no meat. There is no plan other than to develop clean technology and ask for voluntary reductions by corporations. This is no plan or even a policy shift. The speech was rhetoric–the worst kind of rhetoric. It gives the impression that the US is actually going to take action on climate change, but the clear intention here is to placate. After 7 years in office, the US still does not have a comprehensive plan for addressing what is sure to be one of the greatest challenges of this century.
I urge people to read the transcript of the speech and play close attention to the features.
“First, the incentive should be carbon-weighted to make lower emission power sources less expensive relative to higher emissions sources — and it should take into account our nation’s energy security needs.”
OK.
Second, the incentive should be technology-neutral because the government should not be picking winners and losers in this emerging market.
Huh?
“Third, the incentive should be long-lasting. It should provide a positive and reliable market signal not only for the investment in a technology, but also for the investments in domestic manufacturing capacity and infrastructure that will help lower costs and scale up availability.”
That’s the plan?
“If we fully implement our new strong laws, adhere to the principles that I’ve outlined, and adopt appropriate incentives, we will put America on an ambitious new track for greenhouse gas reductions.”
Not even close. This speech indicates the President’s desire to let everyone else do the hard work necessary to address this issue and is hardly a commitment to changing the policies that affect greenhouse gas emissions or trying to change the behaviors of Americans to conserve energy.
Clinton, McCain, and Obama
