Bush makes controversial commitment to climate

President Bush called for a halt in the growth of greenhouse gases by 2025, acknowledging the need to head-off serious climate change.

The plan came under fire immediately from environmentalists and congressional Democrats who favor mandatory emission cuts, a position also held by all three presidential contenders.

Bush, in a Rose Garden address last Wednesday, set a specific target date for U.S. climate pollution reductions for the first time and said he was ready to commit to a binding international agreement on long-term reductions as long as other countries such as China do the same.

“There is a wrong way and a right way to approach reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” Bush said, making clear that he opposes a Senate measure that would impose mandatory limits on greenhouse gases beginning in five years, followed by annual reductions.

“Bad legislation would impose tremendous costs on our economy and American families without accomplishing the important climate change goals we share,” the president said.

He said that he envisions a comprehensive blend of market incentives and regulations that would encourage clean and efficient energy technologies. And he singled out the electric utility industry, saying power plants need to stabilize carbon dioxide pollution within 15 years and reduce them after that.

While characterized by the White House as a fresh strategy to attack climate change, the president gave no new proposals for achieving these pollution reductions.

He cited, instead, measures already enacted such as a 40 percent increase in auto fuel economy, a requirement for a huge increase in use of ethanol and other biofuels and some efficiency standards, as well as a push for developing clean energy technologies.

“I do feel it is too little too late, but I’m not sure how it will affect business in Northeast Ohio or business in general in the U.S.,” said Nick Baumgartner, professor of chemistry at John Carroll University. “Will these added requirements actually create more jobs and stimulate the economy? I don’t have the answers, but I do know we all need to consider how we can help to solve the problems that continued global warming will cause,” he added.

Environmentalists said the Energy Department’s own forecasts have shown that even with those advances, encompassed in energy legislation approved last year, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are expected to increase about ten percent by 2025.

All three presidential contenders are supporters of mandatory limits to reduce climate changing pollution, mainly carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, has been a co-sponsor of mandatory emissions’ cap legislation. Democratic candidates Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both have said they would make binding emissions reduction requirements a top priority. Some conservative House Republicans have expressed privately to the White House concern about Bush’s call for a timetable for emission reductions, while other congressional Republicans said they welcomed the president becoming more engaged in the issue.

“The president has articulated a progressive vision for a comprehensive solution to climate change,” Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, told The Carroll News.

The senator has voiced concern about the economic cost of the Senate climate bill. Still, Senate Democrats and environmentalists said the president’s plan would allow continued growth of greenhouse gases for nearly two decades, during which the government estimates heat-trapping emissions from U.S. electric power plants alone are expected to grow by 16 percent.

A climate bill expected to be taken up by the Senate in June would call for a 19 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2025 and about a 70 percent reduction by mid-century from power plants, transportation and industrial sources.

Bush called such a requirement unrealistic and economically damaging, but indicated that he would like to see some congressional action on climate this year to avert what aides have characterized as a train wreck of regulations under existing laws such as the Clean Air Act and Endangered Species Act.

These laws “were never meant to regulate global climate change,” said Bush, and would “make the federal government act like a local planning and zoning board.” A year ago, the Supreme Court declared that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and directed the Environmental Protection Agency to determine whether carbon dioxide is endangering public health or welfare. If so, the court said the EPA must regulate carbon dioxide emissions. This new plan may affect international talks that have been scheduled in Paris this summer and were initially meant to focus on reducing trade barriers to environmentally friendly technology.