Michigan Green - Carbon Heat

April 23, 2008

It's part politics. It's part reality. But the sum total equates to a fundamental shift in national policy as it relates to global warming.

The Bush administration now says that the growth of greenhouse gas emissions must be halted by 2025. After years of opposing any such regulations, the White House is laying out what might become the general framework for new discussions. It's a necessary move, as political candidates and businesses alike realize that carbon constraints are becoming increasingly real. A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, meantime, requires the administration to take action if it deems the release of those emissions as harmful to human health and the environment.

The president not only fears that a perceived lack of leadership will mar his legacy but he also can read the tea leaves. The administration therefore wants to exert its influence by trying to set the debate's parameters. It is espousing a blend of market incentives and regulations that are all enabled by new technologies.

Despite the last minute push, the president's proposals will never be enacted by Congress. Hard core Republicans say that the cost to remedy what they believe is a natural phenomenon is hugely expensive. Democrats, meanwhile, believe that a more aggressive plan will be formulated after a new administration is sworn in.

"Even if the Bush administration threw its full weight behind a bill beginning today, we think it is very unlikely that the partisan Democratic Congress will decide to work with him and give him a victory on his way out of office," says Christine Tezak, regulatory analyst with the Stanford Group in Washington. "What a Bush proposal may do is widen the debate in terms of what could or should get done on greenhouse gas regulation."

But Democratic leaders want action taken now, noting that current regulations under the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act provide cover. The High Court's ruling only underscores the need for urgency.

The administration, however, prefers a streamlined approach. In a Washington Times story, sources close to the administration were quoted as saying that they have been cornered and feel that they must do something to prevent a "regulatory nightmare." As such, the administration would be perceived less as naysayers and more as mainstream politicos who want to reach a reasonable solution.

"To reach our 2025 goal, we will need to more rapidly slow the growth of power sector greenhouse gas emissions so that they peak within 10 to 15 years, and decline thereafter," says President Bush, in a Rose Garden ceremony. "By doing so, we will reduce emission levels in the power sector well below where they were projected to be when we first announced our climate strategy in 2002."

Political Landscape

One of the administration's purposes is to influence global warming debates that will take place in Congress in June. Senators Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. and John Warner, R-Va., would place mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions but allow those industrials that exceed the limits to buy credits from those who meet them. The goal is to reduce such emissions by 70 percent by 2050.

By contrast, the Bush administration has eschewed mandatory reductions and instead has chosen to pursue voluntary decreases. It argues that until the technologies are developed that can capture and store heat-trapping emissions, compulsory restrictions on those releases would be meaningless. The president's current position is that a gradual phase-in of emissions cuts is better than required and rapid reductions. Such an approach would assure greater success without creating economic disruptions.

The administration emphasizes that it is not philosophically opposed to a cap-and-trade regime with respect to greenhouse gases, noting that the president has long touted such free market strategies to cutting other harmful emissions. Regardless, it says that it cannot support Senate's bill that would require 70 percent reductions and that a broad philosophical structure is more practical. Under one scenario, power plants would receive a "safety valve" if the cost to fix emissions escalates too much.

The administration is not just feeling pressure at home. It is also feeling it abroad. It's still getting heat from the global community over its failure in January in Bali, Indonesia to support a hard reduction in greenhouse gases by mid century. European nations had wanted the current White House to support a commitment similar to their own, which is a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 using 1990 as a baseline.

The president refused but has emphasized that his plan would be part of binding international agreement if developing nations such as China and India come on board. If exempted, Bush says it would put them at a competitive economic advantage.

All three presidential candidates, incidentally, have said they support cap-and-trade provisions like those enacted by the European nations. That increases the likelihood that supporters of tougher action will wait until next year when they can get more support. Democratic leaders, in fact, have said they will withdraw any bill from a vote that attempts to water down the Lieberman-Warner measure.

"The president is throwing a Hail Mary to polluters in a last-ditch effort to stave off any meaningful action on global warming," says Carl Pope, head of the Sierra Club. "Under the president's plan, we'll need a real miracle to save us from global warming."

The political landscape is clear, necessitating that the Bush administration weigh in. While some say that its involvement should be viewed with skepticism, others say that its contribution will help clear the thicket. It all points to the reality that carbon constraints will eventually arrive and that all stakeholders need to get involved in the debate.

More information is available from Energy Central:

Respond to the editor.
Ken Silverstein EnergyBiz Insider Editor-in-Chief
Read Ken's Blog