|
His proposal falls far short of existing commitments by the European Union to reduce its emissions 20 percent below 1990 emissions by 2020 and by 30 percent if other wealthy nations, including the United States, follow suit. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international body representing the views of thousands of atmospheric and climate scientists and which has issued a series of increasingly alarming reports about global warming, has also called for immediate reductions.
Bush's proposal also falls far short of pending legislation in Congress that, if approved, would mandate reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 25 percent below 2005 emissions levels by 2020 and by as much as 55 percent by 2050. Under the bill, reductions in emissions would begin in 2012; that is, 13 years before Bush's target.
The legislation, co-sponsored by Sen. Joseph Lieberman and Republican Sen. John Warner, is regarded as having a good chance of passing this year, offering the prospect of a major victory for the environmental movement. Bush said Wednesday he opposed the bill.
Bush's remarks appeared designed chiefly to try to influence the debate in Congress, where he received a dismissive reaction from the chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, California Sen. Barbara Boxer.
"If it's true that the president's proposal would allow increases in the nation's global warming pollution for the next 17 years, then it's not a plan, it's a joke," she told reporters.
Bush appeared to be acting at the behest of some of his big-business supporters who are increasingly concerned that they could face tougher regulation by a more Democratic Congress next year when a Democrat may also be ensconced in the White House.
In a major setback to the administration, the Supreme Court ruled last year that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and thus subject to regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The ruling, according to observers, has prepared the ground for a host of new regulations with which businesses in virtually all sectors of the economy will have to comply.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the ruling's implications have spurred the White House to meet with Republicans to devise a legislative strategy. The newspaper quoted one lawmaker who participated in the meeting as saying that both the Bush administration and Republican lawmakers are trying to figure out: "Do you do nothing during this Congress? ...Or by doing (nothing) do you run the risk of really terrible legislation in the next Congress?"
Bush himself appeared to indicate he hoped to get some version of his plan enacted by Congress this year, although the absence of specific details made it unclear what a bill would include.
"Decisions with such far-reaching impact should not be left to unelected regulators and judges," he said in reference to the EPA's newly affirmed authority. "Such decisions should be debated openly and made by the elected representatives of the people they affect. The American people deserve an honest assessment of the costs, benefits and feasibility of any proposed solution."
As for principles that should be embodied in any legislation, Bush stressed that "the wrong way is to jeopardise our energy and economic security by abandoning nuclear power and our nation's huge reserves of coal."
"The right way," he went on, "is to promote more emission-free nuclear power and encourage investments necessary to produce electricity from coal without releasing carbon into the air."
Comments? Send a letter to the editor.Albion Monitor April
17, 2008 (http://www.albionmonitor.com) All Rights Reserved. Contact rights@monitor.net for permission to use in any format. |