Energy | April 17, 2008 |
Bush Climate Plan: Too Little Too Late
The President set a goal of stopping the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, several years after the U.N. Climate Panel urged that reductions must be made to avert the worst environmental effects.
Bush said that the goal was based on the progress of technology -- avoiding any mention of energy efficiency save lighting, or any reference to changes in consumption. "We must all recognize that in the long run, new technologies are the key to addressing climate change," he said.
He criticized the U.S. courts -- and by implication the state of California -- for applying the Clean Air Act to greenhouse emissions because it was "never meant to regulate global climate."
Bush also warned against raising taxes on fossil fuels because they would threaten economic growth. Increase the cost of power production and consumption would not only affect energy companies but also "force the government to regulate smaller users and producers of energy -- from schools and stores to hospitals and apartment buildings..." which would "have crippling effects on our entire economy."
Bush did suggest restructing taxes and incentives so that carbon output is weighed in their calculation. He asked that incentives should be technology neutral and long-lasing, to "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."
One European official quoted by Reuters referred to the President's lame duck status as rendering his speech irrelevant. "But Bush will be leaving office soon. What he says doesn't matter so much any more."


Comments By Readers
Thanks Duncan for the comment. As you know, we all ezcognire the need for rapid deployment, and we're all working toward a similar long-term vision. The question is what kind of political and policy strategy can begin achieving the technology improvements and political consensus we need to get us there.Obama's proposal included both an increase in RD D and a clean energy standard. So in terms of the administration's approach we're not just talking about RD D, though that's clearly one of the primary areas where we can and should make progress right now. Based on the evidence, a climate-centric strategy would primarily serve to divide the public, anger and empower the Tea Party base, encourage the Republican House to kill all legislative proposals, and better position themselves for 2012. On the other hand, an agenda with investments in clean energy technology at the front and center speaks to a much broader and more powerful set of public interests, and can continue building the clean energy consensus. We haven't argued that nobody should be working to advance climate education, just that we believe President Obama's approach is sound.Thanks again and let's keep the conversation going!Teryn
Post Your Comment