May 2007
Bush: Climate Change Cowboy
President Bush’s recent announcement of plans to create a “new global framework” to curb greenhouse gas emissions ought to have been heralded by fanfares of trumpets and the exultation of all. It appeared to herald a volte-face after almost two terms of denial, though if one but scratches the surface a truly insidious image is revealed.
The first question to be asked is why the President would become involved in an issue that his administration has repeatedly claimed is unattributable to human activity. Whether this is because of the cumulative pressure of world opinion, increasing American awareness and an avenging Californian Governor or a genuine change of heart is debatable. However, there is an underlying current of opportunism in his plan.
The scheme was outlined by the President as follows:
"By the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases. To help develop this goal, the United States would convene a series of meetings of nations that produced most greenhouse gas emissions, including nations with rapidly growing economies like India and China."
This would mean that the 15 nations responsible for the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions would meet in the autumn with the hope of agreeing to a deal by the end of 2008, though quite how this would be achieved was not set out.
Whilst it is hard to pinpoint the positive aspects of Bush’s statement that are not wrapped in rhetoric, the disadvantages are all too apparent.
In the short term, he has found a panacea for criticism that was sure to be levelled at him during the June meeting of the G8 leaders. In the long term, he has a raft of perceived benefits to be accrued for the US. As part of his speech, he demanded that every country should slash tariff barriers to the transfer of environmental technology, which would provide a shot in the arm for high-tech American firms in their ability to export their goods and make greater profits.
More importantly, his scheme rivals the already existing UN framework on climate change and gives a multiplicity of ways to promote US interests. Stealing the UN’s thunder could be seen as part of a broader attempt to damage the organisation’s image whilst limiting its influence and power. Ignoring the need for a second UN resolution over the Iraq war and attempting to settle the matter outside of internationally accepted norms (and indeed the law); the appointment of John Bolton as US ambassador to the UN – a self confessed opponent of the UN who does not see its use or relevance in the modern world; and attempting to derail the UN process on climate change with a rival system all present growing evidence to this effect.
Indeed, Annie Petsonk, International Counsel of the Washington based organisation Environmental Defense has questioned Bush’s logic as being thoroughly non sequitur:
"He's rejected the proposal that (German Chancellor Angela) Merkel and the other G8 countries have put on the table, a proposal entirely consistent with stabilizing the climate. Why does he feel the need for a new forum with a whole new set of frameworks for targets?
He's offered no indication of how much if any emissions reductions you could get by cutting tariff barriers. It's not a solution.
Bush first opposed cap and trade saying it costs too much, But Europe is doing it, Europe is growing its economy, and Europe is moving ahead with low carbon technologies."
Moreover, the vague hyperbole seems more likely to hinder progress over the issue as claimed by Tony Juniper, Head of Friends of the Earth:
"This is a deliberate and carefully crafted attempt to derail any prospect of a climate change agreement (at the G8 summit) in Germany next week.
He is trying to destroy the prospect of that getting anywhere by announcing his own parallel process with very vaguely expressed objectives.
The prospects of him getting this to some form of conclusion in 18 months are extremely slim. Basically we should see this as a delaying tactic to keep the climate change issue off his back in terms of any real decisions until he leaves office (in early 2009)."
One must question the overwhelming negativity of response from environmentalists, as it is hard to believe that enmity for Bush himself would overshadow what would appear to be a new dawn in American attitudes to climate change. Perhaps they are merely more adept at seeing through the smoke. And it is not just the more socially conscious of commentators that find Bush’s change of heart hard to believe. Seb Walhain, head of environmental markets at one of Belgium’s biggest banks perhaps stated this best in his incredulity:
"That's very good isn't it? Bush talking about goals, that's perfect isn't it?"
Print this page