Skybird
04-17-08, 09:36 AM
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,druck-547947,00.html
There has a been pattern with George W. Bush and climate change. He promises action -- but the details end up being major disappointments to those who believe action is needed. In his campaign, Bush came out in support of mandatory curbs on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, only to backtrack quickly after becoming President.
In 2002, he offered a "plan" to fight global warming, but it was a minor increase in support for technology and the setting of targets that were only voluntary. In May, 2007, he issued an executive order calling for regulatory steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles by 2008, but his agencies never followed up with actual proposals for accomplishing those reductions. At an international meeting on climate change in Bali in December, the frustration of the rest of the world bubbled over. A representative from Papua New Guinea shouted at the US delegation: "If you are not willing to lead, then get out of the way!"
Now, the pattern is repeating. The White House had promised that President Bush would deliver a major speech on April 16 on global warming in the Rose Garden. Just as with previous announcements, the move was scheduled right before a major international meeting on climate change, this time in Paris. Senior officials even leaked details to The Wall Street Journal a day before, prompting a front-page story on Wednesday headlined "Bush to Call for Greenhouse-Gas Curbs."
But did the White House call for mandatory curbs of the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases? Actually no. The speech set only principles and goals, not mandates. The "new" national goal, Bush said, was "to stop the growth of US greenhouse gas emissions by 2025." In other words, emissions would be allowed to increase for the next 18 years before anything substantive was done. Note the contrast to legislation now being considered in Congress, which tries to do what scientists say is needed to prevent damaging amount of global warming. A bill introduced by Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner, for instance, calls for mandatory curbs. It sets a target of cutting emissions by 19 percent by 2020 compared with levels in 2005.
Not surprisingly, the response from advocates of action on climate change ranged from disappointed to scathing. "These principles are laughable," says Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. "The President is about eight years behind the curve." Adds Representative Ed Markey: "The real headline should be: 'Bush pledges to do nothing before Jan. 20, 2009.' It is a strategy of delay and distract."
(...)
So why has the White House jumped into this debate at all? A key reason is a coming legal train wreck. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that carbon dioxide is a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act, and thus the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate it under that statute. The implications of that ruling are profound. Under the law, the EPA must decide whether carbon dioxide is endangering "health and welfare." Given the growing evidence of the dangers of climate change, the agency essentially has no legal choice but to make an endangerment finding. When it does, it must also then impose limits on carbon dioxide emissions.
The Bush EPA has refused to make the endangerment finding and issue such regulations. But environmental groups are pursuing lawsuits that will eventually force the agency to act. The next Administration's EPA, however, may not be so reluctant to act.
This prospect of potentially draconian regulations from the new Administration's EPA has many companies petrified. Using the Clean Air Act would bring "a straitjacket approach that would have profound economic consequences," says Scott Segal, partner at Bracewell & Giuliani, whose clients include power companies and petroleum refiners. In the debate late last year in Congress over increasing fuel mileage standards for vehicles, the No. 1 issue for the US Chamber of Congress was whether the legislation would explicitly remove the EPA's authority to require tighter standards under the Clean Air Act. The Chamber lost that battle. So now, hanging over industry like a sword of Damocles, is the threat of EPA-mandated curbs on greenhouse gases. In his speech, Bush called the legal situation "a growing problem." If the agency is allowed to regulate under the existing laws, "it would have crippling effects on our entire economy," the President said.
The only way to escape this fate is for Congress to pass new legislation, creating a new legal mechanism for climate regulation. Such legislation is now seen as inevitable, and a fight has already begun about the details. Many companies, including Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, General Electric, PepsiCo, Rio Tinto and Shell, have endorsed the idea of big, mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. But many others are opposed to anything so dramatic.
That's why some business executives had been pressuring the White House to step into the debate. If the Administration accepts that global warming is a problem and begins to use its considerable clout in the congressional debate, it increases the chances that the eventual bill will be weaker than environmentalists want. It also boosts chances that Congress will get a bill done this year. "The President's proposal suggests he may be open to signing legislation should it arrive on his desk," explains William Reilly, the EPA's administrator under the first President Bush. "If so, that removes at least one argument against legislating now."
(...)
There has a been pattern with George W. Bush and climate change. He promises action -- but the details end up being major disappointments to those who believe action is needed. In his campaign, Bush came out in support of mandatory curbs on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, only to backtrack quickly after becoming President.
In 2002, he offered a "plan" to fight global warming, but it was a minor increase in support for technology and the setting of targets that were only voluntary. In May, 2007, he issued an executive order calling for regulatory steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles by 2008, but his agencies never followed up with actual proposals for accomplishing those reductions. At an international meeting on climate change in Bali in December, the frustration of the rest of the world bubbled over. A representative from Papua New Guinea shouted at the US delegation: "If you are not willing to lead, then get out of the way!"
Now, the pattern is repeating. The White House had promised that President Bush would deliver a major speech on April 16 on global warming in the Rose Garden. Just as with previous announcements, the move was scheduled right before a major international meeting on climate change, this time in Paris. Senior officials even leaked details to The Wall Street Journal a day before, prompting a front-page story on Wednesday headlined "Bush to Call for Greenhouse-Gas Curbs."
But did the White House call for mandatory curbs of the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases? Actually no. The speech set only principles and goals, not mandates. The "new" national goal, Bush said, was "to stop the growth of US greenhouse gas emissions by 2025." In other words, emissions would be allowed to increase for the next 18 years before anything substantive was done. Note the contrast to legislation now being considered in Congress, which tries to do what scientists say is needed to prevent damaging amount of global warming. A bill introduced by Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner, for instance, calls for mandatory curbs. It sets a target of cutting emissions by 19 percent by 2020 compared with levels in 2005.
Not surprisingly, the response from advocates of action on climate change ranged from disappointed to scathing. "These principles are laughable," says Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. "The President is about eight years behind the curve." Adds Representative Ed Markey: "The real headline should be: 'Bush pledges to do nothing before Jan. 20, 2009.' It is a strategy of delay and distract."
(...)
So why has the White House jumped into this debate at all? A key reason is a coming legal train wreck. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that carbon dioxide is a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act, and thus the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate it under that statute. The implications of that ruling are profound. Under the law, the EPA must decide whether carbon dioxide is endangering "health and welfare." Given the growing evidence of the dangers of climate change, the agency essentially has no legal choice but to make an endangerment finding. When it does, it must also then impose limits on carbon dioxide emissions.
The Bush EPA has refused to make the endangerment finding and issue such regulations. But environmental groups are pursuing lawsuits that will eventually force the agency to act. The next Administration's EPA, however, may not be so reluctant to act.
This prospect of potentially draconian regulations from the new Administration's EPA has many companies petrified. Using the Clean Air Act would bring "a straitjacket approach that would have profound economic consequences," says Scott Segal, partner at Bracewell & Giuliani, whose clients include power companies and petroleum refiners. In the debate late last year in Congress over increasing fuel mileage standards for vehicles, the No. 1 issue for the US Chamber of Congress was whether the legislation would explicitly remove the EPA's authority to require tighter standards under the Clean Air Act. The Chamber lost that battle. So now, hanging over industry like a sword of Damocles, is the threat of EPA-mandated curbs on greenhouse gases. In his speech, Bush called the legal situation "a growing problem." If the agency is allowed to regulate under the existing laws, "it would have crippling effects on our entire economy," the President said.
The only way to escape this fate is for Congress to pass new legislation, creating a new legal mechanism for climate regulation. Such legislation is now seen as inevitable, and a fight has already begun about the details. Many companies, including Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, General Electric, PepsiCo, Rio Tinto and Shell, have endorsed the idea of big, mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. But many others are opposed to anything so dramatic.
That's why some business executives had been pressuring the White House to step into the debate. If the Administration accepts that global warming is a problem and begins to use its considerable clout in the congressional debate, it increases the chances that the eventual bill will be weaker than environmentalists want. It also boosts chances that Congress will get a bill done this year. "The President's proposal suggests he may be open to signing legislation should it arrive on his desk," explains William Reilly, the EPA's administrator under the first President Bush. "If so, that removes at least one argument against legislating now."
(...)