What's next? Tuesday March 13 9:39 PM ET Bush Backs Off Campaign Pledge on Pollution By Steve Holland WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush abandoned a campaign pledge on Tuesday, telling Congress he would not seek to impose mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide at electrical power plants. The move angered environmentalists and was at odds with the spirit of the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 U.N. climate pact accord aimed at reducing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. The accord was signed by the United States but has not been ratified by the Senate and Bush opposes it. Bush had declared in a presidential campaign speech on energy that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and thus susceptible to emissions controls, but aides said on Tuesday it had been a mistake to do so since it is not listed as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In a letter to Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, Bush outlined why he was shifting position. He said he feared caps on carbon dioxide emissions, produced by the burning of coal and other fossil fuels, would lead to higher energy prices at a time when they are already increasing across the country, and after the shortages in California. He pointed to a recently released Energy Department report that said including caps on carbon dioxide emissions ``would lead to an even more dramatic shift from coal to natural gas for electric power generation and significantly higher electricity prices.'' ``This is important new information that warrants a reevaluation, especially at a time of rising energy prices and a serious energy shortage,'' Bush said. The move was a disappointment to environmental and other interested groups. A coalition of 13 organizations last Friday had called on Bush to fulfill his pledge to clean up pollution generated by electric power plants. ``We're extremely distressed to read this. It sounds like Bush is bowing to heavy lobbying pressure from business interests and making a complete U-turn on a campaign promise he made,'' said Allen Mattison, spokesman for the Sierra Club, which was part of the coalition. David Doniger, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said: ``Bush has turned his back on the consensus of the science which shows that global warming is an alarming problem.'' ``You just can't deal with global warming unless you deal with power plants. He's snuffed out the spark of what we had hoped would be a progressive environmental policy. He's caved in to the coal industry's medieval view of the science,'' said Doniger. Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee called the Bush administration's decision ``a disappointing turn of events,'' adding that it would do nothing to blunt the current energy crisis in California and other western states. ``I had hoped President Bush would help us start a constructive discussion on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Now Congress will have to try to make progress on a comprehensive clean air approach without the administration, I guess,'' Reid said in a statement. Bush pledged to work with Congress on a strategy to require power plants to reduce emissions of three other major pollutants, 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,'' Bush said. ``I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act,'' said Bush. Bush also cited the ``incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change and the lack of commercially available technologies for removing and storing carbon dioxide.'' White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush was on record as being concerned about the impact of global warming ``but he does believe we have to research more fully what the causes are so we can know what the solutions are.'' The great majority of research into global warming suggests greenhouses gases are a cause. Hagel and three fellow Senate Republicans -- Larry Craig of Idaho, Pat Roberts of Kansas and Frank Murkowski of Alaska -- had sent Bush a letter about a week ago asking him to spell out his position after hearing conflicting information from the Environmental Protection Agency on what Bush intended to do. ``The only way I know how to do this is to go directly to the source, and give him a chance to lay it out, which he has done,'' Hagel told reporters on Capitol Hill. Hagel said of Bush's letter, ``this is a clear statement. There are those who will agree with it and those who will disagree. I agree with it.'' ------------------ "Don't waste it. We're here."
Republicans don't have to worry... he'll only break the promises that he used as lies to define himself as a moderate. ------------------ "We've never been very comfortable with praising ourselves, but we're so proud of our new album, The Great Eastern, that we've got no problem telling people it's an absolutely fantastic record." EMMA POLLOCK of the delgados.
Gee, what a surprise. I really thought Bush cared about the environment, oh well. It doesn't matter, its our grandchildren's problem, not ours. ------------------ Hakeem "The Dream" Olajuwon is the greatest player in the history of basketball. If you disagree, you are not a Rocket fan.
Yeah, **** the poor! And anyone who thinks Bush is anything but a moderate needs to stop inventing arbitrary political designations just to make themselves feel better. ------------------ Things are tough all over, I know what you mean... --Damon Johnson
Has he had relations with an intern yet and lied to the nation on national tv? Bush can break all his campaign promises and never be as bad as Willy.
When a Democrat does it, "all politicians are liars". How nice! I love the consistency! ------------------ "****!" --Kenny Thomas
They all lie. They all cheat. They all steal. However, we should be consistent here. If conservatives can criticize liberals, we sure as hell can do the opposite. BK: The poor???? You think this has ANYTHING to do with them? Just like that tax cut has everything to do with the poor. The poor have ZERO voice in America with Democrats AND Republicans. This had NOTHING to do with protecting them. This had EVERYTHING to do with Bush protecting the special interests he has always protected, the same one's that turned Houston into the most polluted city in America. When he allowed some of the worst polluting refineries in the US (in and around Houston) to be grandfathered so they wouldn't face EPA regulations (he said it would cost energy companies too much), I knew it was a big prolem. Those grandfathered companies produce 90% of the refinery emissions in a city where 55% of the smog comes from the chemical refineries. My wife used to work at the newspaper in Baytown and she remembers how, on cloudy days, the pollution was awful because the refineries used the clouds to mask their emissions. On those low-cloud days, they would produce 10 to 20 times the emissions to avoid EPA regulations. Everyone knew it but no one could do anything because the chemical companies basically owned the town. Many of the people they were polluting the worst were their own, blue-collar workers who lived near the plants. Now, THAT is ****ing the poor. They have to deal with the health problems as a result. Of course, they can't afford good healthcare and the government won't help them with that either. ------------------ "Don't waste it. We're here."
I applaud this move. I live in California, as does my entire family. One month the electric bill at my grandmothers house jumped from $100 to $600. That is for one month. To impose regulations that would hinder energy production now would be lunacy. When the promise was made there was not an energy crises, now there is. If he promised not to go to war, and then the enemy started landing on our beaches, one would not expect him to keep his promise. This is determined by neccessity, not a predetermined plan to break the promises that may have gotten him elected (although the environmentalists probably didn't vote for bush anyway.) ------------------ "We messed with the Bull, and we got the horns." -- Larry Brown "quote" from AirBullard.com
Big surprise... Republicans have never given a damn about the environment. "I suspect that had my dad not been president, he'd be asking the same questions: How'd your meeting go with so-and-so? … How did you feel when you stood up in front of the people for the State of the Union Address—state of the budget address, whatever you call it."—Interview with the Washington Post, March 9, 2001
Thanks, exactly my point. The poor have no voice, so we can easily enact new environmental regulations that cause economic repercussions that the poor are not financially equipped to deal with. In other words, *I* can afford higher energy prices, higher taxes on so-called environmentally unfriendly vehicles, higher prices on products manufactured by the companies who are targeted by these measures, and a higher cost of living in general. I'm assuming you can, too. Can the poor? If we make it more expensive for them to heat their homes, drive their vehicles, and buy their staple goods, how are they going to pay for it?
PS: I hate clean air, clean water, and healthy living. I wish that all of us, me included, lived in polluted cities, breathed smoggy air, and died of cancer at the age of 40. I especially wish children lived in polluted areas and got sick. REALLY sick, I mean like can't-even-get-out-of-bed sick. After all, I'm a Republican. ------------------ Pollution rules! Clean air sucks! I hope you're coughing, where ever you are!
I knew it Kagy! I knew it! Call me a cynic (cynic). But when someone has the Oil Industry background that Bush has, you'll have a hard time convincing me that he isn't getting a double whammy here. Industry doesn't want caps on carbon dioxide. E.g. the Oil industry is threatened by a push in electrical power technology. You and I both know that most of the differences in cost come in R&D, just like w/ every other industry. After the technology exists, and the users accept that technology, there aren't going to be schisms in cost. That's bull. Besides, Bush's answer to curb the energy issue is to fetching drill in the ANWR. I just read a fetching suck report that estimated costs at $45+/barrell to drill there through the permafrost, let alone the costs to make sure that one of the few outstanding pristine natural places on earth remains that way. This has fetching next to nothing to do w/ poor people and their high energy costs. This is a sparkler waved around in front of the publics' eyes while Bush gives his Coal & Oil buddies a huuuuuuuuuuuugggge gift. So get off of your 'man of the people' bs. Jeff gave us the quote where Bush's own confidant laughed at the thought that the US accepted him as a moderate. ------------------ (===) [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited March 14, 2001).]
If we all just went out and bought electric cars then it wouldn't be a problem anymore. Or we could breathe less then that would solve the carbon dioxide problem. ------------------ Hinei ma tov umanaim, shevet achim gam yachad.
I'm not claiming he's the ****ing 'man of the people'. I'm pointing out how hypocritical it is for people to claim they've got all of our best interests at heart when their recommendations to protect those interests will **** the poor in this country. Why don't you try answering my question instead of putting words in my mouth: how are the poor going to afford your munificence? ------------------ Pollution rules! Clean air sucks! I hope you're coughing, where ever you are!
1) 2) Given that another of his suggestions to curb the energy crisis is to drill in the ANWR, which I already pointed out is extremely expensive (and wouldn't actually do anything to handle the energy crisis in time)... it's obvious that 'poor people' aren't his big concern. Barrels are going for $30.00 right now... can you sell someone a $45.00 barrel, fetch no! 3) Energy Tax credits for people. Gore proposed this, did dud every accept it? 4) Just like republicans before me, I'll say "get a job". If you can't afford fuel, you suck, die! Our economy demands that 5% of the people be unemployed and cold all of the time! ------------------ (===)
Technically he has not broken his promise yet. No where did he say that if the energy prices go back down, he will not again attempt to enforce the new regulations. People just assume he is in the power industries pocket, but there is no proof for that. Give the guy some time to prove himself. ------------------ "all your base are belong to us!" "you have no chance to survive make your time!"
If that is truly the case, why would you EVER favor profit over environmental regulation? That is the bottom line here. It will cost energy companies a lot of money to regulate them, so we don't do it. When the oil boom busted in Houston, companies were forced to diversify and find new ways to profit. Do any of us honestly believe that big companies will just shut their doors if they are forced to re-tool their operations to better protect the environment? Hell no. They'll just adapt like they always have. However, if we do nothing about it, nothing will ever change because big companies are lazy. They won't change unless they are forced to even if it means polluting the air, water and earth. I wish they would prove me wrong, but they've done everything in their power in the past to protect profits over people, so why should now be any different? ------------------ "Don't waste it. We're here."
