Experts Examine Bush's Global Warming Speech
President Bush raised many concerns with his speech last week, outlining a new initiative on global warming and the curtailment of greenhouse gases.
Many saw the speech as a reversal of policy on the part of the president after seven years of opposition to mandatory controls on energy in the name of fighting climate change.
Efforts to impose mandatory cuts in carbon dioxide emissions would be very costly to American consumers and have little or no real-world impact on global temperatures, some global warming policy experts say.
"Nothing President Bush can propose will prevent further warming, but it will undermine the ongoing search for an accurate understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change," observed Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
"Greenhouse gas restrictions ignore significant gaps in knowledge, will raise energy prices on the backs of the poor, stunt economic growth, and yet do nothing to prevent whatever further warming," Burnett added.
Such concerns about the president's statements could be overblown, suggested Ben Lieberman, a Heritage Foundation analyst. The president was careful to endorse several important principles that may make this much less of a policy shift than it seems, he said.
For example, the president said he will not support any measures that hurt the American economy or that fail to include other major nations, such as China. If these principles are adhered to, some of the early expressed concerns should be alleviated.
Looking at some events that could have prompted the president's speech, Lieberman noted a major economies meeting being held in Paris. This is one of a series of meetings launched by the president in September 2007 to bring together leaders of the nations that have the world's largest economies, with the ultimate goal participation in any greenhouse gas emissions plan.
Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the climate change treaty that exempts developing nations, this process seeks "meaningful participation of every major economy and gives no one a free ride," according to the president.
Another prompt may have been Senate Bill 2191, the America's Climate Security Act, Lieberman speculates. This is described as a carbon cap-and-trade bill with stringent targets likely to be debated in June.
Several studies predict very serious economic consequences from this bill should it be adopted, including potential job losses well into the millions, higher energy prices and possible annual costs per household in the thousands of dollars.
The president also is facing several tough regulatory decisions related to climate change. One is a 2007 Supreme Court decision requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles. Another is litigation to force the Department of Interior to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act on the grounds that climate change is altering its habitat.
One problem presented in the speech is the president's touting of his massive ethanol mandate as a success, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Lieberman said. His talk of marked-based solutions and the need to develop new technologies was welcome, but it contradicted his endorsement of government subsidies.
In embracing specific emissions targets, the president took an unnecessary step in the wrong direction. But what he said he would not support is the key element in his speech.
Refusing to support measures that hurt the American economy or that fail to also include other major nations such as China, represent effective damage control in environmental policy.
