Bush's Last Stand on Climate. | Green Energy News

April 20, 2008 – Vol.13 No.5

BUSH’S LAST STAND ON CLIMATE.

We may hear from George Bush again on climate change if Congress puts a related bill on his desk for a signature. But, his most recent offering on April 16 on greenhouse gas emission cuts is probably the last he’ll volunteer as President of the United States. In his plan he sets a goal to slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade, stop growth by 2025 then reverse the trend after that. He’s putting a timeline on reducing emissions not stating a specific cap as to what it should be.

It’s obvious that his view on the subject has changed since he first took office in 2001, though in the election of 2000 he promised to regulate carbon dioxide. He’s closer now to being a full fledged greenie than ever before. Call it maturation.

His current thinking in some aspects seems reasonable.

For instance, he’s right in saying that ultimately a technological fix is needed. After all, the buildup of greenhouse gases has been caused by a lack of understanding over more than a century as to the effects pollutants from technology would have on the planet’s thin atmosphere. If builders of coal-fired powerplants knew in the 1800’ s of the damage they would cause a century later they may have chosen another way to make electricity. If housing developers as recently as the 1950’s had known of the emissions problems associated with sprawling suburbs and the reliance on automobiles they, too, might have chosen another development path.

He’s also correct in thinking that all polluters on the planet need to come on board and work together. The US working with the Kyoto signers, for instance, can’t do the job alone. But this doesn’t mean the US should sit on the sidelines and do little while waiting for China and India to join the game. If the US took the lead now, growing nations would follow in cutting emissions.

His idea for a carbon-weighted incentive program to develop new low carbon technologies that took the nation’s energy security needs into consideration, but long lasting and technology neutral is fine. There may be technologies out there offering a lower carbon footprint than wind or solar energy. Those technologies should be equally considered and be eligible for the incentive.

Yet in his speech, and from reading a dozen responses by concerned groups, there’s a definite feeling that people were looking for something more specific, something course-changing for the nation. He could have talked about a plan to build high-speed, low-emission intercity rail, but he didn’t. He could have talked about a plan to make ALL buildings green buildings, but said nothing along those lines. He could have talked about a program to help commercialize ultra high fuel economy vehicles being developed by small manufacturers outside of Detroit, but said nothing. He could have talked more about what it would take to close the nation’s coal fired power plants, but instead he brought back a favorite – clean coal.

The bottom line is that industrialized economies, particularly the US, were built on the notion that cheap energy would last forever, that it could be squandered and that only noxious pollutants were a threat to human and other life. As it stands economies now have to be rethought and over as short a time as possible be rebuilt or modified to reflect the two basic realities: Humans do affect the atmosphere and that fossil energy isn’t forever.