Bush Breaks Promise to Protect Environment, Betrays Public

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, March 14, 2001; Page A01

President Bush has decided not to seek reductions in the carbon dioxide emissions of the nation's power plants, reversing himself on a campaign pledge after encountering strong resistance from the coal and oil industries and from Republican allies on Capitol Hill.

In a letter yesterday to four Republican senators, Bush cited a recent Energy Department study showing that restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions would result in a shift from coal to natural gas and lead to higher energy costs. "I do not believe . . . that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide," Bush said.

The president's decision was a sharp blow to lawmakers and environmentalists who are seeking to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and are widely thought to contribute to the Earth's rising temperature. It also effectively overruled Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, who had said several times since she took office that Bush would keep his campaign pledge.

Bush's promise to seek a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions had been hailed by environmentalists, who welcomed it as a significant boost to their efforts to limit levels of a pollutant that does not directly harm human health but that many scientists say is altering weather patterns and the ecosystem. Bush's pledge took many environmentalists by surprise, because it went further than Bush's opponent, Vice President Al Gore, who was widely credited for his strong pro-environment views.

The president's reversal was sharply criticized by Democrats and some Republicans who had praised Bush for addressing one of the leading long-term problems associated with global warming. A bipartisan group of Senate and House members led by Sen. James M. Jeffords (R-Vt.) and Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.) plans to introduce a bill Thursday to scale back power plant carbon emissions to 1990 levels.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) called the reversal "a breathtaking betrayal" of Bush's promise to fight global warming. "The administration's reported attempt to blame energy prices for inaction is an embarrassment," he said. "If the administration fails to act, it won't be because of energy prices. It will be because special interests are dictating the president's environmental policies."

But coal and oil industry officials said Bush's decision ensures a more "balanced" energy and environmental policy. Industry spokesmen had warned that any effort to cap carbon emissions would complicate or foil administration efforts to boost domestic energy production.

"There was a great contradiction between mandating carbon dioxide controls on the one hand and developing balanced energy programs on the other, because requiring mandatory controls would drive a stake through the heart of a balanced energy program," said John Grasser of the National Mining Association.

The new administration has slowed the momentum on some of Bush's campaign promises, such as reforming the Social Security system, and equivocated on a few issues, such as its position on research involving fetal stem cells. But the decision on carbon emissions represents the first outright reversal of a stance Bush staked out as a presidential candidate.

As part of what the campaign called "A Comprehensive National Energy Policy," Bush said during a speech Sept. 29 in Michigan that he would "work to make our air cleaner" while promoting electricity and renewable energy. "With the help of Congress, environmental groups and industry," he said, "we will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time."

Bush tweaked Gore for proposing that reductions in those emissions be voluntary. "In Texas, we've done better with mandatory reductions, and I believe the nation can do better," said Bush, then the governor of Texas.

In yesterday's letter, Bush said he intended to work with Congress to reduce other emissions from power plants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury. "Any such strategy would include phasing in reductions over a reasonable period of time, providing regulatory certainty and offering market-based incentives to help industry meet the targets," he said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that carbon dioxide "should not have been included as a pollutant" in Bush's campaign position, because it is not classified as one in the Clean Air Act.

Sen. Larry E. Craig (Idaho), one of four Republican senators who wrote to the president last week expressing their opposition to limits on carbon dioxide emissions, said Bush had wisely refused to be hemmed in by "a campaign document that was not well written."

"If you attempt to regulate carbon dioxide, you will regulate us into a permanent energy crisis in this country," Craig said. "And I think they understand that at the White House now."

Craig and three other Republicans -- Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Jesse Helms (N.C.) and Pat Roberts (Kan.) -- have voiced alarm at efforts by Whitman and other administration officials to revive international talks on a global warming treaty that they and others say would hurt the U.S. economy.

In a Feb. 27 memo to Deputy Secretary of State-designate Richard Armitage, Hagel expressed concern about an anonymous letter he received that described "continued efforts" by two officials held over from the Clinton administration "to quietly and continually negotiate aspects of the Kyoto protocol without any Bush administration oversight and awareness."

"We need to get control of this," Hagel wrote.

Environmental groups that had previously praised Bush for advocating a "multi-pollutant" approach to addressing global warming yesterday criticized the administration for bowing to industry pressures.

"So much for an administration that was trying to appear to care about the environment," said Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust. "The president has acknowledged that global warming is one of the most important environmental issues we face, and one of his first acts is to walk away from his most explicit environmental promise."

Staff writer Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.

© 2001 The Washington Post Company

-- Kneels to Coal & Oil (cheap@liar.com), March 14, 2001

Answers

So you too fall for the hysterics that say America must destroy its economy to placate a bunch of socialists??

-- global warming is a bunch of hot air (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), March 14, 2001.

It depends on what the definition of "promise" is.

-- (APromiseMade@IsAPromise.Kept), March 14, 2001.

In a letter yesterday to four Republican senators, Bush cited a recent Energy Department study showing that restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions would result in a shift from coal to natural gas and lead to higher energy costs.

In this particular case, a change in direction IS appropriate!

No doubt MANY on this forum have been on the receiving end of 30-75% higher natural gas bills this winter. Just what do you think your now very high natural gas bill will be when your local power company is forced by emission reg's to build natural gas power plants thus becoming another very LARGE user of existing natural gas already in VERY tight supply?

ONE EXAMPLE: Here in Wisconsin, Wisconsin Electric, is forced with increased electrical demand to build new power plants. At least one of these will be a natural gas powered plant, due to environmental regualations (Clinton's), generating 225 Megawatt s of power. Wanna guess how much natural gas that will take to power?

They are proposing a 36 INCH HIGH PRESSURE NATURAL GAS MAIN be brought in from 12 miles away to accomplish this task! Now, without too much thought here, this is just ONE new power plant out of M-A-N-Y accross this country moving in this direction.

How long do you think it will be before the 30-70% increase of natural gas prices from this past winter begins to look CHEAP once these behemoth's start sucking our natural gas supplies dry?

There is a planned fastrack solution for this natural gas shortage, with two new pipelines from the Northslope of Alaska in the 'works'. The problem is it will take FIVE YEARS before it is pipped down to the lower 48.

Get a grip! The situation changed when California showed the shortsightedness of Clinton's current energy policies.

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), March 14, 2001.


Exactly. Sometimes it's okay to lie to the American people. It just depends on whether you are a Republican or a "DemonCrat".

-- (APromiseMade@IsAPromise.Kept), March 14, 2001.

Ain't == Dennis Olson.

-- Jesus (martinez@mexico.gov), March 14, 2001.


Get a grip! The situation changed when California showed the shortsightedness of Clinton's current energy policies.

The California energy crisis happened AFTER Bush was in office. It is not a lie to change direction if current conditions dictate a new direction is needed than otherwise planned for. To do differently would be shear stupidity!

An effect you obviously suffer from!

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), March 14, 2001.


Ain't == Dennis Olson.

-- Jesus (martinez@mexico.gov), March 14, 2001.

ZOOWIE BATMAN! Ain't lives in the same state as Dennis Olson!!!!

Well! Since there is only one person living in the state, HE must be Dennis!

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!! You are a MORON

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), March 14, 2001.


It is not a lie to change direction if current conditions dictate a new direction is needed than otherwise planned for.

So it depends on what the meaning of "lie" is.

-- (APromiseMade@IsAPromise.Kept), March 14, 2001.


Sounds like the anti-Bush crowd faces a ticklish issue here. Bush was awful because his proposed policies were bad. So he changes one. Is this good? NO! Now he's a liar! Bush is bad if he does what he promised, and bad if he doesn't. This is because actual policies are not relevant. What's relevant is the *belief* that Bush is bad, no matter what he does or doesn't do.

This is all depressingly familiar. Some people have a most amazing ability to make the facts fit the conclusions instead of the other way around. But they sure look silly doing it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 14, 2001.


Flint:

Looking at where the markets are going, one thing is for sure: I don't worry about Dubya reversing himself on Capitol gains.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 14, 2001.



Flint: "Bush was awful because his proposed policies were bad. So he changes one. Is this good? NO!"

In a world where all choices are binary, changing a position would always result in the opposite effect. Sadly, Flint, we live in a world more complex than Flatland. For this reason, it is possible for a political position to move from bad to worse. If you don't believe me, you can look it up!

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 14, 2001.


"This is because actual policies are not relevant."

In Dumbya's case that is unfortunately true. We knew he was lying when he said he supported a policy to reduce global warming, and now he has proved it. Regardless of what policies this scoundrel says he will support you need to look at the character and the reputation of the man, or in Bush's case, the "man-child". Bush is the lowest form of life to ever steal the presidency, and his mission is to fuck up the lives of all but the richest of the rich.

-- (dumbya@dirty.rotten.scoundrel), March 14, 2001.


If you people would just quit yer yappin', shut off the damn computer as well as all those unnecessary lights ya got burning, and quit drivin' around in those damn SUVs, we wouldn't be in this heap 'o trouble!

Sheesh!

-- (your-own@damn.fault), March 14, 2001.


I smell a liberal puke.

-- Ron Wesson (progun@progun.com), March 15, 2001.

I smell a dumbass redneck bumfucker.

-- Mr. Mossberg (I kill rednecks @ for. target practice), March 15, 2001.


People are so brain dead that they do not realise they are being manipulated into believing things that are not real. Bush thinks all he has to do is make a statement and it is fact. Thats how he did it in Texas, anyone who protested was put on his shit list and made to pay for their opposition. He has even bragged about what he does to anyone who opposes him. What he doesn't realise is that the rest of the country is not made up of people stuck in the old boy network like Texas and he is really pissing a lot of people off. The democrats have been smart enough to keep quiet and let him do whatever he wanted for the first part of the year, it's simply a case of giving him enough rope to hang himself. And he is.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), March 15, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ