President Bush's Disappointing Climate Proposal

Stuart E. Eizenstat, Frank E. Loy and David B. Sandalow

The President's response to the challenge of climate change is characterized by a failure to acknowledge the gravity of the problem and a timidity that contrasts sharply with his response to the problem of terrorism. His plan has three principal flaws:

First, the President's goal - to reduce "greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity" by 18% over the next ten years -- is nothing more than business as usual. GHG intensity has been declining in the United States at roughly this rate for the past decade. During the decade of the 1990s, as GHG intensity dropped in the United States, GHG emissions nevertheless rose by over 12%. In the decade ahead, using the administration's economic projections and assuming the President's GHG intensity reduction is achieved, U.S. emissions would climb roughly 30% above 1990 levels. In contrast, industrialized nations that took targets under the Kyoto Protocol will together reduce emissions by about 3% from 1990 levels.

Such a trend in U.S. emissions is unacceptable. The overwhelming consensus of the science community is that continued emissions growth in the decades ahead threatens extraordinary and highly damaging changes in the global climate system. As the world's largest economy and largest emitter, we have a responsibility to act.

Second, the President's plan relies entirely on voluntary actions. In the United States, we have now had more than a decade of experience with serious voluntary efforts. They have helped slow the growth in emissions, and we have learned much from them, but they have proved to be inadequate to achieve overall emissions reductions.

The President's plan lacks the serious and concrete measures needed to change the trajectory of U.S. emissions. It lacks measures to spark innovation, harness the power of the market and unlock the technological potential of U.S. industry to address climate change. Examples of such measures include a comprehensive GHG cap-and-trade program, as proposed by Senators Joe Lieberman and John McCain, and limits on carbon dioxide emissions as part of a "four pollutant" approach in the power sector, as proposed by Senator Jim Jeffords and by Mr. Bush during the Presidential campaign.

Third, the plan fails to deliver what it promises. Budget requests that are billed as "increases" in fact mask cuts of more than $52 million to important technology development programs, including those for solar energy and energy efficiency. The tax incentives proposed -- $7.1 billion over ten years - are actually $2.2 billion less than those proposed by the Clinton administration and, given the size of the U.S. economy, are not nearly large enough to serve as a meaningful incentive for innovation.

Perhaps most objectionable is the premise underlying the President's plan: that the United States lacks the know-how and resolve to meet the challenge of climate change without undue economic harm. Study after study demonstrating the enormous technological potential to reduce GHG emissions suggests otherwise. The experience of other nations in reducing GHG emissions suggests otherwise. Our success in addressing other environmental problems - including acid rain and stratospheric ozone depletion -- suggests otherwise. Our history as a nation suggests otherwise.

The U.S. has a proud history of rising to great challenges. We can - and must - meet the challenge of climate change.

Mr. Eizenstat is head of the international department at Covington & Burling. Mr. Loy is a member of the Board of the Pew Center for Global Climate Change and senior fellow at the World Wildlife Fund. Mr. Sandalow is executive vice president of the World Wildlife Fund. Each held senior positions in the Clinton administration.