Environment

Browse By:

Home » Beyond the Headlines » Environment

Bush Calls for Action on Climate Change

April 21, 2008 02:16 PM

by findingDulcinea Staff

The president unveiled a plan Wednesday to cap emissions by 2025; however, developing nations and observers question his motives.

Bush’s speech marked a sharp change in his climate change rhetoric, which previously focused on reducing the nation’s carbon intensity vis-à-vis the growth of the American economy. Carbon intensity has dropped 17 percent since 2002, well ahead of the 2012 target of 18 percent.

Myron Ebell, energy analyst for think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute said, “Thanks to conservative opposition, the president has stepped back from the most damaging proposals being considered.”

After his rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, international observers perceived Bush as indifferent to environmental issues. That perception was shared at home when Bush lifted antipollution regulations at factories.

Reactions to Wednesday’s speech included phrases such as “half-baked” and “missed opportunity.”

See Reuters coverage

Headline Link: ‘Bush’s Climate Goals Vague—but a Start’

Kevin Book, a senior energy and technology analyst at the investment firm FBR Group, said of Bush’s speech, “You'll have plenty of critics saying it's too late, it doesn't go far enough, or it undercuts existing goals,” but it had “a strong acknowledgment of a need for action and a very useful counterpoint.”

Source: The Christian Science Monitor

go to site »

Video: Bush’s April 16 climate change speech

Originally broadcast on C-SPAN, Bush’s Rose Garden speech is available in two YouTube clips.

Source: C-SPAN on YouTube (Part 1)

go to site »

This is the second of the two video YouTube clips of Bush’s speech as broadcast on C-SPAN.

Source: C-SPAN on YouTube (Part 2)

go to site »

Background: Climate change’s costs

The EPA’s 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded, “human beings are exposed to climate change directly through changing weather patterns (for example, more intense and frequent extreme events) and indirectly through changes in water, air, food quality and quantity, ecosystems, agriculture, and economy.”

Source: EPA

go to site »

Reactions: ‘Taking Additional Action to Confront Climate Change’

The White House statement on Bush’s plans says: “The administration is urging each country to develop its own national goals and plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Like many other countries, America's national plan will be a comprehensive blend of market incentives and regulations to reduce emissions by encouraging clean and efficient energy technologies.”

Source: The White House

go to site »

Alexis Madrigal at Wired magazine’s blog calls Bush’s speech a “half-baked ruse” that would allow carbon emissions to increase through 2020: “Bush also consistently conflates energy security goals—mythical independence from foreign oil, say—with climate change goals—primarily reducing carbon dioxide emissions from burning hydrocarbons. Don’t get it twisted: ethanol is about growing our own, not kicking our habit.”

Source: Wired magazine

go to site »

The Washington Post says Bush missed a chance to formulate effective policy. “With the Senate due to debate in June a bill from Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.) that would establish a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, Mr. Bush’s strictures about the right and wrong ways to craft legislation were unhelpful. What’s needed is explicit presidential support for the Lieberman-Warner plan or other binding measures to reduce emissions.”

Source: The Washington Post (free registration may be required)

go to site »

Historical Context: Bush and climate change policy

In August 2003, Bush abolished requirements that companies install antipollution devices before increasing emissions levels. He said his Clear Skies initiative and other regulations would rein in pollution.

Source: The New York Times (free registration required)

go to site »

The Daily Telegraph reports that Bush saw rejecting the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 as “realistic.” To the Telegraph, it was “the latest signal that the new U.S. administration is prepared to act unilaterally and with scant regard to European sensibilities.”

Source: The Daily Telegraph

go to site »

Opinion & Analysis: Repackaged policy

The Economist doubts the potential effectiveness of Bush’s climate change policy: “It sounds like the new goals may not be all that different from the administration's previous endorsement of ‘aspirational’ policy and voluntary actions where carbon emissions are concerned.”

Source: The Economist

go to site »

Karin S. Thorburn at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business cites a study on the value of voluntary environmental guidelines on corporations. Among 46 firms in a greenhouse gas-curbing venture, “The total loss in market value was $16 billion. The stock price decline was smaller for firms in carbon-intensive industries, where regulatory action is more likely…and greater for high-growth firms, suggesting that the green investments crowd out growth-related capital expenditures.”

Source: VoxEU

go to site »

Green Energy News says Americans say they want environmental policy changes, “but in reality, they don’t want it all at once. Gradual change in fits and starts, bits and pieces seems more palatable.”