Posted on behalf of Jeff Tollefson:
The media has been abuzz for days with speculation about whether President George W. Bush would seek to rescue his environmental legacy today by taking a bold new stance on global warming. The answer would appear to be no.
In a 20-minute speech that set the stage for the latest White House climate talks this week in Paris, the president outlined a “goal” of halting the growth in US greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. Notably absent was a proposal for accomplishing said goal.
Already a veritable pariah within the international climate community, Bush was quickly derided among environmentalists and Democrats for simply restating “aspirational goals” and his technology-first approach to the problem. In anticipation of the event, one Democratic blogger even revived and amended a drinking game in which a shot is taken each time Bush said the word “technology.” For today’s speech, that would mean 12 shots. Adding bonus shots for each mention of the word “goal” brings that total to 26.
Others, including the League of Conservation Voters, took the moral high road by reminding Bush that the Vatican last year listed polluting among a new category of modern sins. None other than Pope Benedict XVI (who left the White House just hours before the speech) has called for “courageous choices that will re-create a strong alliance between man and Earth.”
The president got a few encouraging words from fellow Republicans, including New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici, who credited Bush with setting a specific target and calling on all nations to follow suit. Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe, long a leading global warming skeptic, praised the president for opposing costly new regulations in favour of a softer path that “embraces and develops new technologies.”
Bush called on Congress to act, and he outlined a series of “good ways” and “bad ways” to do so. But he offered nothing that could be lined up against the leading climate legislation in the Senate, authored by Republican John Warner of Virginia and Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. That bill would reduce US overall emissions roughly 19 percent by 2020 and 70 percent by mid-century, compared to 2005. (Nature article here, subscription required.)
The president quoted Michigan Democrat John Dingell, who is in charge of climate legislation in the House, on the danger of creating a patchwork of state and federal regulations under various environmental laws that were never intended for such purposes. Dingell responded in kind by releasing a two-sentence statement minutes after the speech.
“I am glad the President finally wants to engage on the issue of climate change,” Dingell said. “The best way for him to do that is by coming forward with a concrete legislative proposal.”