Despite the rapid proliferation of regional, state and municipal climate change policies, despite investor and business anxiety about lack of regulatory clarity, despite the growing base of support for action among some of his allies in the religious community, the Bush administration has made no effort to update its position on climate change or to come up with any real plan. Even the tremendous pressure the administration is under for its handling of Hurricane Katrina and the public’s impressions that the oil industry is making exorbitant profits at the expense of the consumer haven’t made an impact. Thus, the president’s policy (or lack thereof) is increasingly out of step with the rest of America.

This section highlights key climate change-related activities of the Bush administration over the past few years. The president’s overall policy towards climate change has remained the same since his first year in office: oppose mandatory caps on emissions, set non-binding emissions goals that are based on continuation of recent trends, rely on voluntary programs and continue to actively expand fossil fuel development. For a detailed analysis of the Bush administration’s overall approach to climate change policy see U.S. Climate Action Network’s 2004 report “The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly.”⁷¹

In light of the administration’s failure to support a single policy mandating reductions in total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, many have urged the international community to press on without the United States, as states like California are implementing policies that will serve as the framework for future national action. The following section of this report briefly recaps the Bush administration’s general approach to climate change and then highlights recent activities both abroad and at home that reconfirm the need to leave the Bush administration isolated on this issue.

4.1 PRESIDENT BUSH’S CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY IN A NUTSHELL

In February 2002, President Bush announced his global warming plan. Though it was presented as a comprehensive approach to the problem, the president’s plan was basically an extension of the status quo. It sets a voluntary goal of reducing greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent over ten years—approximately the rate at which intensity had improved over the preceding decade.⁷² The president hopes to achieve this goal in part through his Climate VISION program (Voluntary Innovative Sector Initiatives: Opportunities Now), which is a voluntary public-private program that includes the participation of certain industries. The commitments taken by sectors under this program are often less than business as usual and fall short of achieving even the president’s inadequate 18 percent intensity reduction goal. The electricity sector, for examples, has undertaken one of the few quantified voluntary targets, aiming to reduce its greenhouse gas intensity by 3 to 5 percent (measured per kWh generated).⁷³ However, this intensity reduction would let emissions increase by 13 to 16 percent between 2000 and 2010, even more than the 11 percent growth forecast by the Energy Information Administration.⁷⁴

While phrased as a reduction, the president’s plan would actually allow U.S. emissions to increase to 32 percent above 1990 levels by 2012 given projections of economic growth.⁷⁵ By comparison, the target that the U.S. negotiated in the Kyoto Protocol was seven percent below 1990 levels by 2012. This is clearly not a plan at all.

To achieve its climate change emissions target, the Bush administration relies on voluntary industry commitments and registries, investment in technology research and development, tax incentives, and science research. The United States has had numerous voluntary programs, significant investment in technology R&D, tax incentives, and a significant science research program in place for more than a decade. During this time, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have risen by more than 16 percent.⁷⁶ This does not bode well for the efficacy of the Bush approach.

4.2 INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITY ON CLIMATE CHANGE: THE ASIA PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP

Despite its opposition to any binding approach to greenhouse gas reductions, the Bush administration does not want to appear to be neglecting its responsibilities when it comes to international climate policy. When challenged on its lack of international engagement on climate change, the White House points to its many bilateral and regional agreements to work with other countries on climate change.

In July 2005, the United Sates joined Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea in creating the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate (the AP6). This partnership is focused on cooperation in development and transfer of emissions reduction technology. The partnership has no targets, goals or timetable for greenhouse gas reductions and all action within the group is completely voluntary. The AP6 is based on burning coal in a “cleaner way”, rather than finding alternative cleaner energy sources. In 2006, the AP6 continues to fall short for a number of reasons, especially because without targets, timetables or market based incentives to encourage the deployment of already developed clean technologies, the partnership cannot possibly help us to avoid dangerous climate change and the U.S. and Australia have not promised nearly enough money to allow the AP6 to create real change.







FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT USCAN:
Visit: www.usclimatenetwork.org
CONTACT:
1326 14th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005 USA

Gary Cook, Director
Phone: +1 202.609.9846
Email: gcook@usclimatenetwork.org

----------
⁷¹_{US Climate Action Network, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: A Guide to U.S. Climate Policy”, http://www.climatenetwork.org/uscanweb/gbu.}

⁷²_{In the decade from 1990-2000, U.S. emissions intensity(defined as the ratio of total global warming pollution to total gross domestic product) decreased by 17.4 percent. World Resources Institute 2002. Analysis of Bush Administration Greenhouse Gas Target, February 14, 2002. http://www.wri.org/pdf/analysis_bush.pdf.}

⁷³_{U.S. EPA (2003). Meeting President Bush’s Climate Challenge to Business and Industry, Factsheet.}

⁷⁴_{Compare, Edison Electric Institute (2002), EEI, Industry Allies Launch Power Partners to Support President Bush’s Climate Initiative, with Energy Information Administration (2003), Annual Energy Outlook 2003, Reference Case Forecast, Table 19.}

⁷⁵_{RIVM, Evaluating the Bush Climate Initiative, 2002, http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheck/rapporten/728001019.html,}

⁷⁶ _{U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, In Brief – The U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, 2005.}