Think Tech Central Station is happy with the Bushies’ recently proposed Kyoto alternative? Think again. “How do I hate thee, Mini-Kyoto? Let me count the ways….”
1. Nich Schultz, “Baby Steps On the Road to Serfdom “
President Bush has crafted a political compromise on global warming designed to placate Europeans and greens fretting over the effects of CO2 emissions on climate change. The proposal calls for ‘voluntary’ (albeit with heavy incentives) CO2 emissions reductions and a focus on CO2 emissions ‘intensity’ as opposed to absolute emissions levels. This decision is a shame, for two reasons.
First, as an appeasement mechanism it likely won’t work.
[…]Second, and more importantly, by allowing for baby steps ostensibly designed to moderate climate change, the Bush administration has ceded to aggressive social engineers an argument that it has no scientific reason to concede
2. Ryan H. Sager, “Voluntary = Mandatory”
If George Orwell were alive today to sum up the Bush global warming plan, he might boil it down to three words: Voluntary Is Mandatory.
That’s the message that is readily apparent to free marketers concerned that George W. is going squishy on The Environment just like his father did more than a decade ago. While the carbon trading scheme that Bush proposed Thursday might start out voluntary, there isn’t a serious person inside the beltway who believes it could stay that way over the long run if it were to be implemented.
3. James K.Glassman, “Bush Turns Green”
On Aug. 4, 1997, Kenneth L. Lay, the chairman of Enron Corp., met with Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin to discuss the global-warming conference coming up in Kyoto. Mr. Lay was an enthusiastic advocate of the Kyoto climate-change treaty — for two reasons.
First, it would set up a “cap-and-trade” system that could prove highly profitable to Enron.
[…]Second, Kyoto favored natural gas over coal, America’s most abundant energy resource, and Enron owned 25,000 miles of natural-gas transmission pipelines plus nine natural-gas power plants. Demand for gas would rise, and prices would soar.
According to the Washington Post, an Enron official said in an internal memo that if implemented, Kyoto ‘would do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative.’
4. Philip Stott, “Read My Lips: No Mini-Kyoto””
Unless Mr. Bush rejoins the Kyoto Protocol precisely on European terms and bows to European blackmail and bluster on this issue, Europe will never be appeased. It is crucial to remember that, for many Europeans, Kyoto is only a means to an end, to an ultimate 60% cut in so-called ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions and, effectively, to the de-industrialization of the world. They see Kyoto as one of their major weapons in the fight, paradoxically not for, but against globalization and free trade.
[…]Mr. Bush must not, therefore, opt for a mini-American-style Kyoto, mirroring the mandatory controls demanded by the Europeans. Energy diversification and efficiency are fine economic and political goals in themselves. They do not require specious arguments about controlling the climates and oceans of the world, a human hubris about which King Canute warned us many centuries ago. We should, by contrast, recall the words of Ludwig Max Goldberger (1848-1913): ‘America, the land of unlimited possibilities.’ Incentives, growth and dynamism will themselves produce diversification and efficiency, with a natural search for the hydrogen economy, for renewables, and for diversity in energy production and supply.
And it is essential not to be deceived by European rhetoric on this; many Europeans masquerade as ‘greens, when their real targets are much more sinister, namely trade itself, growth, industry, development, globalization, and the American economic success. Such activists will use Kyoto in any way they can for their own ends; Mr. Bush must not let them get away with it, especially within America. He must call their bluff.
5. Ken Adelman, “Don’t Go Wobbly”
Staunch in his stance against terrorism, President Bush now faces strong pressure to cave on another principled position he has taken. Before departing for Asia this weekend, he will be hammered to “go the extra mile” on global climate change.
He should resist such pressure. Succumbing carries scant political upside. For nothing short of embracing the economically pricey though scientifically dubious Kyoto accord will bring Bush much credit. And doing anything more than sticking to current Administration policy – continuing research on whether man-made global warming is indeed a big problem – risks high cost.
6. Sallie Baliunas, “Mr. Bush, Trust the Science”
President Bush’s plan to semi-combat carbon dioxide is unworthy of his principled stand taken last year against the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to limit emissions by the United States of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are feared may cause global warming. The mandated limits on greenhouse gas emissions would, if implemented, devastate the U.S. economy because they are steep de facto cuts in energy use. As a result, U.S. jobs would be destroyed in the coal, steel, petroleum, aluminum, cement, and other energy-intensive industries. Those jobs would flee overseas, to countries exempt from making any emission cuts, like China, India or Mexico. The Energy Information Administration forecast a loss of U.S. Gross Domestic Product of roughly $300 billion per year resulting from the mandated emission cuts. Over a decade, that GDP loss would accumulate to a loss three times more intense than the impact of the Great Depression.
As I wrote yesterday, Bush has — to follow Jay Nordlinger’s argot — shown sac on issues relating to the war on terror; but sac on the domestic front has been less obvious. Is Bush’s Mini-Kyoto an attempt to appease the environmentalists he thinks he needs for an ’04 run? Or are the Bushies hoping (as Ryan Sager muses) for “the idea to get bogged down in partisan bickering and never again see the light of day”?
Time will tell, I suppose — but one thing’s already certain: the greenest of my friends ipso facto dismiss every Bush proposal on the environment as pandering to corporate interests. And nothing I’ve heard from them in the last couple of days leads me to believe this current proposal will change their minds. In fact, nothing short of Bush’s suddenly declaring himself World Energy Czar, and in that capacity outlawing the internal combustion engine and all mechanized industry, will appease these Greens — preaching to me the gospel of conservation from the 9th floor of their cinder-and-glass East Village high rises…
—–