|
 resident
Bush's new climate-change initiative is a baffling reversal of previous
statements made when he rejected the Kyoto Protocol. That treaty
would have required the U.S. to reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions
to seven percent below 1990 levels, a tremendous reduction that
would have required significant energy rationing.
His reasoning
at the time was that the scientific evidence was insufficient to
justify embarking on a course of action that would cost the U.S.
economy hundreds of billions of dollars a year, not to mention the
tremendous economic burdens that would have fallen on developing
countries.
If anything,
the scientific basis for global warming has weakened since that
decision, made last summer. Climate models, which serve as the basis
for long-term climate predictions, have clearly failed when tested
against observed climate data. For instance, the models cannot simulate
the current climate, let alone predict the climate 50 or 100 years
into the future.
Moreover, climate
models predict that the troposphere — the atmospheric layer
from 5,000 to 30,000 feet above the Earth's surface — will
warm first and at a faster rate than the surface layer below 5,000
feet. Highly accurate temperature measurements of the troposphere
taken from satellites show virtually no warming since 1979.
Just this month,
Nature magazine published a study that found that Antarctica
has been cooling since 1966, directly contradicting model results
that suggest that warming will be more pronounced in the Earth's
polar regions. And Science just published a study finding that the
Antarctic ice sheet is expanding rather than shrinking, contrary
to what global-warming enthusiasts would have us believe.
Given the weakening
scientific basis for global warming, the only possible explanation
for Bush's decision is that he is trying to boost his approval ratings
among environmentalists. So far the plan is a political disaster.
Bush has ignored his own natural constituency, not to mention traditionally
Democratic coal-mining states that delivered him the presidency
because of this very issue. And if he thought that environmentalists
were suddenly going to fall in love with him, he's in for a rude
awakening.
The Sierra
Club's executive director, Carl Pope, said, "Unfortunately,
the Bush administration is using Valentine's Day to give a sweetheart
deal to the corporate polluters that funded his campaign."
Jennifer Morgan, director of the World Wildlife Fund's Climate Change
Campaign, accuses the president of delivering "a Valentine's
Day present for the coal and oil industry." Environmental activists
are singing the same tired song they did before the announcement.
Environmentalists
are jumping on the fact that the plan doesn't really require any
reduction in greenhouse gases. The plan calls for an 18 percent
reduction in carbon intensity (carbon emission per unit of output)
over the next ten years. A look at past changes in carbon intensity,
however, reveals that businesses will not be required to do anything
that they aren't already doing. Carbon intensity in the U.S., for
instance, fell by 15 percent in the 1990s and by nearly 50 percent
since 1970.
This is perfectly
natural. Businesses that are trying to maximize profits are continually
finding ways to increase efficiency, thereby lowering costs. The
result is a natural downward trend in carbon intensity. The only
place that carbon intensity didn't fall was in former Communist
countries where there was no profit incentive and thus no motivation
to reduce costs. The corollary to this reduction in carbon intensity,
however, is a rise in total carbon-dioxide emissions.
As energy efficiency
increases, the cost of using energy falls and businesses expand
production and increase energy use. Often this more than offsets
the emissions reductions from greater efficiency. Indeed, this is
exactly what has happened. Lowered carbon intensity has been accompanied
by higher carbon emissions.
Under President
Bush's plan, companies that voluntarily agree to reduce carbon intensity
will receive credits from the government. These credits are potentially
worth billions of dollars, but are virtually worthless unless a
mandatory cap on greenhouse-gas emissions is forthcoming. In effect,
Bush's plan would create a business constituency favoring a mandatory
cap, putting the U.S. right back where it was when Al Gore signed
the Kyoto Protocol. Moreover, any company that doesn't "voluntarily"
participate will be hurt when mandatory caps are put into place,
meaning that companies that are able will have little choice but
to join the fray.
Bush's plan
may also be unfair to small businesses, which may not be able to
afford to participate in the voluntary climate plan, preventing
them from receiving credits. When the mandatory cap is put into
place they will be forced either to reduce emissions or to buy credits
from large companies that were able to take advantage of the program.
That explains
why companies like Enron and the big-business members of the Pew
Center on Climate Change's Business Leadership Council lobbied both
the Clinton and Bush administrations for a voluntary-emission credit
program. Unfortunately, Bush delivered where the Clinton administration
failed to do so.
It's unfortunate
that President Bush has decided to put into place a regulatory framework
to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, giving new life to a dead issue.
Even Europe, which has been most eager to cut greenhouse gases,
is going in the opposite direction.
Great Britain
just announced that its emissions of carbon dioxide increased by
three percent last year and Germany announced that its emissions
rose by 1.5 percent. The European Union is relying heavily on these
two countries to assure that it meets its Kyoto target. Several
economic studies conducted by government, academic, and private
institutions have determined that none of the EU countries is likely
to meet its Kyoto target.
Denmark just
announced that it will no longer subsidize the installation of new
wind turbines, citing soaring energy costs and reduced competitiveness.
In the latest international global-warming negotiations, Russia
and Japan secured so many concessions that the Kyoto protocol is
no longer worth the paper it is printed on.
Economic realities
around the world and Bush's bold rejection of Kyoto had effectively
killed a treaty that had no business being negotiated in the first
place. Inexplicably, Bush has now given new life to an issue that
should just fade away once and for all, effectively snatching defeat
from the jaws of victory.
|
