President Bushs reversal of a campaign promise to reduce global warming
pollution carbon dioxide from power plants has
contributed to a change of political climate in the United States, where
the public is increasingly convinced that Bush favors corporate energy
interests over the environment and public health.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a byproduct of burning fossil fuels such as coal
and oil. An excess of CO2 causes heat to be trapped in the atmosphere,
forcing global temperatures upward, a process known as global warming.
The worlds leading climatologists agree that global warming could
raise world temperatures by as much as 10 degrees before the end of this
century, causing a range of effects from the extinction of coral reefs
to the spread of infectious diseases such as West Nile Virus and dengue
fever. Global warming has already caused sea levels to rise at a rate
that will, within decades, put small island nations under water. An increase
in the severity of hurricanes and droughts has been attributed to the
phenomenon, causing both environmental and economic damage: in 1998 alone,
the United States saw over $24.6 billion in economic losses due to extreme
weather catastrophes.
The largest source of CO2 in the United States is the electric power
industry, accounting for about 40 percent of all U.S. emissions. Of that,
more than 74 percent of power plant emissions come from older, dirtier
coal-fired facilities, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
While on the campaign trail, Bush pledged that, if elected, he would
require electric utilities to reduce emissions and significantly
improve air quality. Bush proposed reducing the four main power
plant pollutants sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, mercury
and carbon dioxide in one law.
Under pressure from corporate lobbyists and administration insiders,
Bush reversed himself in March, just days before moderate Republicans
were poised to introduce such legislation.
In an open letter sent to Senator Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, Bush explained
that he does not believe that the government should impose on power
plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not
a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and that there
is still an incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes
of, and solutions to, global climate change.
Environmentalists say the Clean Air Act gives the EPA broad discretion
in defining pollutants and that the reversal was clearly a political payback
to campaign supporters.
Industry officials defend the reversal. They say reductions of CO2 are
best achieved through voluntary measures which have already begun to achieve
results without forcing the industry to make huge and unnecessary investments.
Dan Riedinger of the Edison Electric Institute says the electric power
industry has long been opposed to the regulation of carbon dioxide
under the Clean Air Act because the electricity generators have
been more successful at reducing or offsetting CO2 emissions through increased
efficiencies and carbon absorption offsets such as the planting of trees
than by directly reducing emissions. Weve got tried and true
technologies to cut NOX and SO2, such as selective catalytic reductions,
but there is no technology to remove CO2 from emissions at coal, oil or
even gas-fired power plants, Riedinger says.
According to an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity (CPI),
Bushs letter resulted from pressure by Hagel and other senior Congressional
Republicans, as well as lobbyists from the coal and oil industries, and
was routed through Nicholas Calio, Bushs legislative affairs director.
Calio and his top assistant both recently served as a paid lobbyists for
Atlantic Richfield Co. (now part of BP Amoco) and Tenneco Automotive,
one of the worlds largest manufacturers of automobile exhaust systems.
According to CPI, Hagel urged Bush to act after receiving an anonymous
tip about efforts by the lame-duck Clinton administration to commit the
United States to regulating carbon dioxide pollution levels as a step
toward implementing the Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. Senate has yet to ratify
the Kyoto Protocol.
The Center for Responsive Politics reports that Hagels second largest
campaign contributor since 1995 has been the Edison International utility
company.
Efforts to control the political damage caused by Bushs reversal
on CO2 have been limited by a pronounced backlash in Europe. EPA Administrator
Christine Whitman had made assurances at the G-8 Environment Summit that
the administration was committed to reducing CO2 emissions just days before
Bushs announcement was made.
The administration has also suffered from an apparent inability to salvage
a legitimate reason for its new position, which is linked to its refusal
to abide by the Kyoto Protocol.
We will not do anything that harms our economy, Bush explained
on March 29.
According to Redefining Progress, 2,500 leading economists, including
eight Nobel Laureates, have endorsed a 1997 declaration stating that policies
to slow climate change can be enacted without harming either the United
States economy or U.S. living standards.
Greenpeaces Kert Davies says the United States may lose competitive
economic advantage by dragging its feet on switching to clean energy.
Germany, for instance, is phasing out nuclear power while committing
to a 60 percent reduction in CO2 emissions. They are doing this in part
by shifting their energy production investments to clean sources including
wind and solar.
Asked whether President Bush was concerned about the growing perception
that corporate lobbyists such as Calio are making public policy decisions,
Ari Fleisher, Bushs press secretary says the President makes
his decisions based on what he believes is in the national interest
sometimes that will include business, and other times it will not.
Phil Radford is a Washington, D.C.-based climate
change activist.
|