The President's Proposals to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Are Inadequate

In February, President George W. Bush unveiled his plan to counter climate change. He also revealed an initiative billed as "the most aggressive in American history to cut power plant emissions" of three air pollutants.

His long-awaited climate-change plan, largely voluntary and incentive-driven, links the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to the U.S. economic growth rate.

It sets a target for cutting the annual growth in carbon dioxide emissions by almost 18 percent by 2012; from an estimated 183 tons for each $1 million of gross domestic product to 151 tons per $1 million. As noted by a White House spokesperson:"Rather than making drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that would put millions of Americans out of work-as the Kyoto Protocol would have required-the President's growth-based approach will accelerate the development of new technologies and encourage partnerships on climate change issues with the developed world."

It proposes to review the scheme in 10 years if "we find that we are not on track toward meeting our goal and sound science justifies further action." At that point, the U.S. would respond with additional market-based schemes and voluntary measures to accelerate technology development and employment.

Further, in the next five years, the President's plan would provide $4.6 billion for tax credits over five years for renewable energy sources. (These inducements have already been suggested in his energy proposals.)

Environmental groups have strongly criticized Mr. Bush's approach. Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, called the proposal "another faith-based initiative." Mr. Clap stated: "The President's global warming proposal appears to be another faith-based initiative: We should have faith that major corporations will line up to volunteer cuts in their carbon pollution. That approach has failed for a decade now, since the President's father set up the first voluntary program. There is no reason to believe polluters are suddenly going to see the light.

"All of the promises to reduce carbon pollution to 18 percent of gross domestic product are meaningless with a voluntary program. Ten years of voluntary efforts have produced miniscule, less than two percent, reductions in U.S. carbon pollution."

The World Wildlife Fund called on the British government to "expose this plan as the swindle it really is." Dr Ute Collier, head of the fund's climate change program, said absolute greenhouse gas emission reductions are needed to limit the "potentially catastrophic impacts of climate change, not targets arbitrarily linked to the U.S. economy."

President Bush also presented a plan to cap and reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury. Environmental groups responded to this plan by releasing a staff report from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which indicated that emissions reductions would be higher under the current Clean Air Act.

Dan Riedenger of the Edison Electric Institute, which helped the Bush Administration write the plan, said the power business needed relief from the numerous overlapping requirements and staggered deadlines of the Clean Air Act, in order to make plans with greater certainty.

Congressman Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, said the President's scheme would "slow down the process of cleaning our air of harmful pollutants from dirty old coal plants. . . Instead of candy and flowers, [he] has given a sweetheart deal to corporate polluters this Valentine's Day."

Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, will begin action soon on legislation that would force deep cuts in carbon emissions as well as in other major power plant pollutants. "Unfortunately, real carbon reductions appear to have completely fallen off the table in this climate policy," Jeffords said.

Background

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. It also occurs naturally, and plays an important role in regulating the Earth's temperature. A layer of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other compounds covers the Earth's atmosphere. Similar to the glass of a greenhouse, this layer helps regulate the Earth's climate by balancing the planet's absorption of heat from the sun and its capacity to re-radiate heat back into space. However, too much carbon dioxide causes excess heat to be trapped in the atmosphere, forcing global temperatures upward, the phenomenon known as "global warming." As a result of excessive burning of fossil fuels, carbon dioxide2in the atmosphere has increased 30 percent since the start of the industrial revolution.

According to the U.S. EPA's study, "National Emissions: Carbon Dioxide," fossil fuel combustion accounts for 99 percent of the total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. More than one-third of that carbon dioxide2 (36 percent) is emitted from fossil fuels burned at power plants. As fossil fuels are combusted, the carbon stored in them is almost entirely converted to carbon dioxide. Among fossil fuels, coal contains the highest amount of carbon per unit of energy (petroleum has 25 percent less carbon than coal and natural gas has 45 percent less carbon).

While 56 percent of power plant boilers in the U.S. are fueled by coal, they account for more than 88 percent of all carbon dioxide2emitted by the power industry. And those2 emissions are on the rise. Carbon dioxide pollution from power plants increased by nine percent from 1990 through 1996, and rose by a dramatic 3.7 percent in the final year alone. Carbon dioxide2emissions from coal-fired power plants increased at an even greater rate, rising by 12.7 percent from 1990 to 1996.

There is broad agreement among scientists and experts, as represented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is occurring. Created in 1988, the IPCC responded to calls from the international scientific and diplomatic communities for a comprehensive review of global warming science. It enlisted the services of 2,000 of the world's top climate experts and scientists, and assigned them the task of assessing the technical issues of global warming and then providing information and guidelines to policymakers.

The IPCC has issued two reports. The first report, released in 1990, predicted possible increases in average temperatures of two to six degrees Fahrenheit by 2010, and called on the world's industrialized nations to cut global warming pollution by 60 to 80 percent. It also concluded that a doubling of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would lead to "serious consequences for the world's social, economic and natural systems."

The IPCC Second Assessment Report confirmed the warming assessment in the first report. It also found that a significant increase in public health risks is possible from higher global temperatures, including the possible spread northward of tropical diseases. Food and water supplies could be further threatened in certain regions of the world, especially the tropics and subtropics where many of the world's poorest people live. Finally, a higher occurrence of extreme weather could occur.

Thus, in most scientific circles, the issue is no longer whether or not global warming is a problem, but how the problem will develop, what its effects will be, how these can be best detected, and what measures can be taken to reduce the damage.

Climate disruption from continuation of current emission practices in the U.S. and around the world threatens deep and long-lasting economic costs, environmental damage and social disruption. Averting these threats requires that global warming greenhouse gas emissions, especially from fossil fuel energy generation, be reduced substantially over the coming decades. This conclusion is based on the broad scientific consensus that led to the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Accord. The Rio Accord was unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate on October 7, 1992, shortly after its submission by President Bush.

The Rio Treaty commits the U.S. to achieving "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with the climate system." Specifically, the Rio Accord aimed at reducing carbon dioxide2emissions to their 1990 levels by 2000.

Because the Rio Accord only accounts for a fraction of the pollution reductions necessary to make a dent in global warming, additional measures are needed. Policies to stimulate innovation in energy production, and infrastructure and regulatory modernization will help achieve further reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.

Suggested Action:

The science is clear: global warming is underway, and poses a great threat to our environment, health and economy. A panel of the world's leading scientists has issued the most comprehensive report ever on the issue, finding that recent warming is largely due to human activity, that the warming will have devastating impacts if nothing is done to reduce heat-trapping emissions, and that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases can be limited.

If the Bush Administration were truly interested in diversifying our energy supplies to shield consumers from recent price spikes, it could seize this opportunity to reduce our over-reliance on polluting fossil fuels like coal. The President could also promote much more aggressive use of America's clean renewable energy and energy efficiency resources.

Instead, with his decisions not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from the nation's power plants, and to pull the U.S. out of the Kyoto Protocol global warming treaty, President Bush has chosen to bolster dirty industries that pollute our air and water and further contribute to global warming.

Help stop global warming. Tell the President to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and promote clean renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Sample Letter:

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Bush,

As a person of faith, I strongly oppose your decision not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from the nation's power plants, and to pull the U.S. out of the Kyoto Protocol.

In March of 2001, religious leaders from all over the country signed a statement entitled "Let There Be Light," calling on the U.S. to reduce its green- house gas emissions, including carbon. Now is the time to participate in the international effort to cut these harmful power plant emissions.

In addition, I encourage you to become serious in diversifying our energy supplies to help shield consumers from recent price spikes. Mr. President, our country could seize this opportunity to reduce our over-reliance on polluting fossil fuels like coal, and promote much more aggressive use of America's clean renewable energy and energy efficiency resources. But rather than rely on sound science and cost-effective solutions to the nation's environmental and energy needs, it appears that your recent emissions announcement will only bolster fossil fuel interests that pollute our air and water and contribute further to global warming.

I urge you to reverse this decision by advocating a national energy policy that reins in dangerous emissions of carbon dioxide and promotes clean renewable energy and energy efficiency.

General Assembly
The 202nd General Assembly (1990) recommends:

• The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) declares its serious concern, in concert with ecumenical partners, that the global atmospheric warming trend (the greenhouse effect) represents one of the most serious global environmental challenges to the health, security, and stability of human life and natural ecosystems...
• The United States should work through the United Nations and appropriate diplomatic channels to reach firm international agreements for steady and substantial reduction of the gases causing climate change...
• The United States government should adopt legislation and administrative policies, with adequate funding, for vigorously stepped-up research and development of energy-efficient technologies.
  The church in its own life must teach, exemplify, and advocate the values and principles, policies and practices that foster energy efficiency, the transition to renewable sources, and the avoidance of products that break down the ozone. (Minutes, 1990, Part I, pp. 669-670)