Bush's New (Old) Tack on Climate Change: Watch Me Pretend to Care
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 04.15.08
Could it be? Could the Bush administration, as the Associated Press and many other news outlets have now reported, really be turning over a new leaf and contemplating taking up "new climate change proposals" to avoid a coming "train wreck" of new regulations? Here's how the AP reported on a news conference held by White House press secretary Dana Perino in which the tentative discussions were addressed:
"At the meeting, White House officials outlined a range of options that were being considered, from simply proposing a set of "principles" to proposing to cap greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, according to two individuals familiar with the discussions.
Perino disputed that description, saying the White House officials, rather than presenting the lawmakers with options, "went up to discuss with members the range of complications and concerns" raised by the possibility of having to regulate greenhouse gases under existing laws."
A. Siegel has a smart line-by-line analysis of Perino's usual vague comments. Based on these statements and the article, then, it's fairly clear that the Bush administration's new tack isn't motivated so much by a new-found appreciation of the risks posed by climate change as by serious concern for a new wave of regulations coming its way. More likely than not, the administration will try coming up with some stopgap measure -- it's still not too hot about a cap and trade proposal -- in order to avoid taking measurable action.
Think Progress' new side project, Wonk Room, also featured a good rebuttal of Perino's claims, calling Bush's proposed new initiatives -- mostly voluntary reduction measures and a set of "principles" -- "trial balloons" to test out new right-wing talking points. The Wall Street Journal described one of the (weak) proposals tossed around during the administration's meetings thusly:
"One option administration officials have discussed, according to individuals close to the administration, is a statement endorsing caps on carbon-dioxide emissions on the condition that such caps wouldn't take effect until technology capable of capturing and storing carbon-dioxide emissions at large power plants is proven commercially viable."
Note that last part: commercially viable. If that's the case, then we may yet have to wait a while.
In all likelihood, we probably won't ever see any meaningful legislation from this administration, they noted. Lest we forget, Joe Romm adds, we've seen this type of "climate change U-turn" before; wonder how that panned out...
Let's not kid ourselves: As many foreign governments have made clear, they don't plan on drafting a successor to Kyoto until the current White House "tenants" depart. All three presidential candidates have expressed support for a cap and trade bill, and both Democrats have pledged to significantly reduce emissions -- by 80% by 2050 (McCain's environmental agenda is a bit murkier and much less aggressive).
As Romm succinctly put it: "Fool me 3 times or more, shame on the media."
Via ::Wonk Room: As Earth Day Nears, White House Pretends To Take Action On Climate (blog), ::Climate Progress: Fool me 3 times or more, shame on the media
See also: ::What Role Will EPA Play In Climate Action? GOP Strategy Announced, ::Bush to Phase Out Environment by 2009
thanks for the great post..
More of the usual; a lot of talk about doing something, more talk about it, some more talk and then when crunch time comes they fight any reasonable change tooth and claw. Just remember the past programs of the Bush Bunch; Clear Skies meant more pollution, Save Our Forests meant cutting in national parks and how many kids got dumped in the rush to Leave No Child Behind. I can hear the refrain at the first press conference for his new global warming initiative..., "I think Brownie's doing a heck of a job"
I agree, this is just Bush trying to create public appeal by superficially addressing the issue in the media. We have yet to see any real conservation programs come out of this.
"More likely than not, the administration will try coming up with some stopgap measure -- it's still not too hot about a cap and trade proposal -- in order to avoid taking measurable action."
More likely to try to do something that screws up their successor's chances to do something right.
And this is not a civil commnet, if you are the Bush adminsitration. It's an uncivil , rude, sarcastic comment.
I am French but I am currently living in the US. I have seen that the candidates running for presidency have some ideas about global warming and environmental protection.
Do you think the one who will be elected is likely to do something concrete or anyway lobbies' pressure is too strong to push forward any reform such as a cap on carbon emissions?
I am asking that because I think it is urgent that the USA takes action at a federal level. Indeed, soon countries such as China and India are going to become the main polluters in the world. How is it going to be possible to ask them to do something and to take actions to curb their carbon emissions for example if the US (which is the richest country in the world) is not doing anything. They are likely to claim that it is unfair.