|
 ord is out on
the street (well, K Street at least) that President Bush's big speech
tonight will include an
endorsement
of the so-called multi-pollutant strategy — a plan for electric
utilities to simultaneously reduce emissions of carbon dioxide,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and possibly mercury. Restricting
carbon-dioxide emissions would be a major mistake that could lead
the nation down a slope of increasingly disastrous energy and environmental
policies.
First off, if the president merely calls carbon dioxide a pollutant,
he will be ceding more ground than the science warrants. Carbon
dioxide is a natural part of the atmosphere, something every plant
takes in and every animal breathes out. Further, it has not been
shown that the additional amount of carbon dioxide emitted through
fossil-fuel combustion is a real threat. Despite recent hype about
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases causing potentially catastrophic
global warming, the scientific evidence is leaning towards nothing
more than a harmlessly small temperature increase. There is no public
outcry for action on carbon emissions, just the usual hyperventilating
from the elites.
Our federal government has not yet capped carbon dioxide, either
alone or in conjunction with other emissions, thanks to efforts
by Representative Joe Knollenberg (R., Mich.) and others in placing
restrictions on doing so in numerous appropriations bills. And,
in 1997, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution not to ratify
any international agreement to limit emissions of greenhouse gases
that substantially burdens the American economy or is not applied
to all nations.
| “There
is no public outcry for action on carbon emissions, just
the usual hyper-ventilating from the elites.” |
|
Nonetheless, the Clinton administration went ahead and signed just
such an agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, but never dared to send it
to the Senate where it faced certain rejection. Bush also opposes
the Kyoto Protocol, but the inclusion of carbon dioxide in multi-pollutant
approaches would lead to de facto implementation of the Kyoto Protocol,
whether or not the real thing ever gets ratified.
Indeed, once carbon dioxide is labeled a pollutant and targeted
as such, even with initial goals that are not overly ambitious,
the process will almost certainly lead to a tightening of the screws.
It is hard to think of an instance where environmentalists have
gotten their foot in the door and not gone on to take over the house.
Even some big electric utilities support the notion of obtaining
valuable and tradable rights to emit carbon dioxide. Why not, since
competitors and/or consumers will ultimately foot the bill? Coal,
natural gas, and petroleum still provide the backbone of our energy
needs and will for the foreseeable future. Therefore, substantial
carbon reductions could only be achieved by a rationing or taxing
scheme that increases the costs of energy to the point where consumers
are forced to use less. Ironically, such an approach runs completely
counter to the administration's pledge to ensure affordable and
reliable energy supplies. Republicans should have an energy policy,
not an anti-energy policy.
The Environmental Protection Agency has the most to gain if carbon
dioxide is treated like an air pollutant and brought under the purview
of the Clean Air Act. Not surprisingly, EPA supports this strategy.
But other agencies have raised caution flags about the multi-pollutant
approach. . The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently
conducted a study on the cost of various multi pollutant strategies.
The costs go through the roof when carbon dioxide is added to the
mix, including a 40 percent increase in the price of electricity.
Bush could learn a lot from the environmental mistakes his father
made. In 1990, the elder Bush added a heap of costly and largely
unnecessary amendments to the Clean Air Act. This massive piece
of legislation did absolutely nothing to help him politically —
environmentalists overwhelmingly supported Clinton just two years
later. And the statute's massive handover of power to EPA contributed,
among other things, to last summer's gasoline price runup, and may
have worsened California's electricity crisis by adding further
impediments to the creation of much needed generation capacity.
Similarly, restricting energy use by adding carbon dioxide to a
multi-pollutant strategy will not win the younger Bush any public
support, and threatens substantial long-term harm.
|
