Backward on Global Warming
The New York Times
February 16, 2002
The obvious conclusion to be
drawn from President Bush's
latest global warming strategy,
unveiled this week, is that he
does not regard warming as a problem. There seems no
other way to interpret a policy that would actually
increase the gases responsible for heating the earth's
atmosphere. That the policy demands little from the
American people, while insulting allies who have agreed to
take tough steps to deal with the problem, only adds to
one's sense of dismay.
The White House described Mr. Bush's strategy as
aggressive and bold. The only thing bold about it are
accounting tactics worthy of Enron that are designed to
make an increase in emissions look like a decrease.
The plan is voluntary and consists mainly of tax credits
and other incentives to encourage Americans to limit
emissions. There is nothing wrong with voluntary
measures or with the credits. Several American companies
have already reduced emissions on their own, partly for
environmental reasons and partly because the efficiencies
required to achieve reductions make economic sense.
But these piecemeal efforts have been undertaken largely
in the expectation that at some point the United States
would join in a collective attack on the buildup of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere, which mainstream scientists
now agree could trigger unwelcome changes in the earth's
climate. Mr. Bush has refused to join that effort,
abandoning his campaign pledge to limit carbon
emissions and renouncing the 1997 Kyoto Protocol
committing industrialized nations to mandatory
reductions of carbon and other greenhouse gases.
Mr. Bush's long-awaited substitute for Kyoto is a
disappointment. The essence of his strategy is a concept
that seems to have been minted for the occasion, called
"emissions intensity," under which carbon dioxide
pollution would be allowed to grow, but at a slower rate
than economic output. That sounds attractive, but it
misses the point. The buildup of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, already alarmingly high, is a cumulative
process. Thus the name of the game is to stop adding new
emissions to the vast amounts already up there, not
simply to slow their growth.
Yet that is all Mr. Bush is proposing to do, meanwhile
dressing up his meager agenda with some squirrely math.
He first posits an increase in emissions that is higher and
more rapid than the forecasts of his own Energy
Department. Then, from this "business-as-usual" baseline,
he promises reductions of 18 percent in the next 10
years. By his own figures, however, actual emissions -
the ones that count - could rise by 14 percent, which is
exactly the rate at which they have been rising for the last
10 years.
Mr. Bush's speech also included proposals aimed at
reducing three other pollutants largely unrelated to global
warming: mercury, sulfur dioxide - the main cause of
acid rain - and nitrogen oxides, which contribute to
urban smog. The president called for stronger, mandatory
caps on all three pollutants and for market-based
mechanisms like emissions trading to help companies
meet those targets. Mr. Bush would substitute this "cap
and trade" approach for the complex system of regulations
that now govern clean air enforcement.
In principle, these are fine ideas. But before disposing of
the existing regulatory structure, Congress must be fully
satisfied that the president's proposals will in fact achieve
the sizable reductions he and his senior associates say
they will. We cannot abandon existing law for a promise.
Meanwhile, Congress is obliged to do something, and
soon, to develop a credible national strategy on global
warming. On this score Mr. Bush has fallen well short of
the mark.
nytimes.com |
