The Good the Bad and the Climate: CUB Responds to the SOTU

The Good News about President Bush’s State of the Union address last night was that he actually acknowledged “global climate change” and called it a “serious challenge.” The Bad News is that his proposal to address the serious challenge sounded not all that serious, a 20% reduction in gasoline usage over 10 years. This reduction, according to Philip Clapp of the National Environmental Trust, would still allow for overall growth of greenhouse gas emissions by 14%. And of course, the Climate is still changing.

Don’t get us wrong. We’re happy that the words “climate change” came from the President’s mouth, and we’re happy he’s suggesting taking some action. But the proposal he has put forward leaves us unimpressed.

For one thing, it deals mainly with transportation-produced greenhouse gases, which is hardly the only source of global warming pollution. Within that somewhat incomplete focus on transportation, Mr. Bush has narrowed the pool of solutions further to include solely automobile-related ideas, with an emphasis on biofuels—particularly ethanol. Again, incomplete. Perhaps Mr. Bush should visit Portland, OR (our fair city) to take a look at other possible ways to reduce transportation-related greenhouse gases, such as public transit, bike lanes, ride-sharing, walkable neighborhoods, buying local, etc.

Beyond transportation lies the 40% of global warming pollution that is produced by the nation’s electricity production (and consumption, of course). For our electrical grid, Mr. Bush has almost nothing to say about the rapidly growing industry of renewable energy sources and the vast gains that stand ready to be made in the areas of conservation and energy efficiency. At last year’s Institute of Science in Society conference in the United Kingdom, the Rt. Hon Michael Meacher, M.P. said this: “I think the evidence is absolutely clear. Renewables are set to become the dominant energy source of the 21st Century; plus determined energy conservation for economic as well as climate change reasons…” Mr. Bush offers us instead only passing mention of renewable energy (at least it made the list), a nod to clean coal (which is still a fossil fuel and still in the pilot stage), and the “Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, aimed at reducing proliferation risks while expanding availability of clean, safe, climate-friendly nuclear energy.” Right.

What’s missing, perhaps most notably, was any discussion of federal carbon dioxide regulation. (And don’t even mention the international standards of the Kyoto Protocol—oh, that’s right, he didn’t.) Without that crucial link, the rest of it may sound nice but offers no real plan for effectively dealing with perhaps the greatest crisis humanity has yet encountered. Without federal regulation of carbon, it becomes even more important that states continue to take the lead on combating the causes of global warming.

Well, you can’t expect a pig to talk like a duck, or a leopard to change its spots, or President Bush to put forward much beyond the “Cooperation with Private Industry” plan that he has offered the American people this year. What’s amazing is that giants of industry are actually ahead of the Bush Administration on this issue: a Call to Action was issued last week by Alcoa, General Electric, and Dupont (among others) calling for national legislation which would cap greenhouse gas emissions. They understand how much stands to be lost to global warming, even if the current Administration does not.

Last year, Mr. Bush admitted that “America is addicted to oil” and the admission caused a stir. During the resulting year, however, his Administration did little to address the oil issue beyond a continued push to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. And, of course, our soldiers remain enmeshed in Iraq. This year he offers us a modest and voluntary plan to reduce emissions, with ethanol in the starring role and ANWR no doubt waiting in the wings. Even when he speaks of raising vehicle mileage standards, he wants his Administration to keep control of the standards rather than Congress legislating them, but how much conservation credibility has this Administration earned?

We are fortunate that the new leadership of Congress is poised to take serious action on climate change. A new House Committee has been formed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to study issues related to climate change. And the McCain Lieberman bill on climate change is back, with Sen. Barack Obama as a new cosponsor. More importantly, we in Oregon live in a state that wants to lead. CUB, the Governor, and many others are pursuing an ambitious Renewable Energy Standards agenda in the Legislature. We hope to decrease our own emissions while at the same time armoring ourselves against the future changes and losses that are expected to result from global warming.

America is behind the times on this issue. Again, from the U.K.‘s Environment Agency: “Science shows that only significant and substantial cuts of greenhouse gas emissions (by as much as 60% by 2050) can achieve stabilisation at low levels in the atmosphere. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report has also shown that the greater the reductions in emissions, and the earlier they are introduced, the smaller and slower the damages.” This president is going to do what he’s going to do. That is why we are really going to have to run with the ‘70s adage to “Think Globally, Act Locally.” Let’s get with it, people.

To keep up with CUB, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter!

• Share this post on Facebook.
• Share this post on LinkedIn.
• Share this post with email.

« Back