The Only Way
Over on the NYT Dot Earth blog Andrew Revkin has posted an annotated transcript of Bush’s Climate speech. It’s an interesting approach to integrate blog comments directly into the content of a post, and some of the commenters really help to cut through the spin.
One portion of Bush’s climate talk that caught my attention was his assertion that the only viable means of reducing our carbon footprint is through advancements in technology.
Over the past seven years, my administration has taken a rational, balanced approach to these serious challenges. We believe we need to protect our environment. We believe we need to strengthen our energy security. We believe we need to grow our economy. And we believe the only way to achieve these goals is through continued advances in technology.
Revkin interjects:
Wording like “the only way” is bound to greatly vex the many experts I hear from — Amory B. Lovins comes to mind — who have repeatedly demonstrated how easy it is to make deep cuts in the CO2 emissions from a building or business at a profit. Then there are all those folks who’ve chosen to telecommute, mayors pursuing traffic management, and on and on. Is there no behavior change Mr. Bush feels is worth throwing into the mix along with better solar panels or nuclear plants?
What Revkin is referring to are methods of either improving the efficiency of carbon producing processes that currently exist, i.e. through improved insulation for buildings or more efficiently managed power systems, and also behavioral and management changes that reduce the demand for products and services that emit greenhouse gasses.
Bush continues,
There are a number of ways to achieve these reductions, but all responsible approaches depend on accelerating the development and deployment of new technologies.
…
I believe that Congressional debate should be guided by certain core principles and a clear appreciation that there is a wrong way and a right way to approach reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Bad legislation would impose tremendous costs on our economy and on American families without accomplishing the important climate change goals we share.
…
The right way is to set realistic goals for reducing emissions consistent with advances in technology, while increasing our energy security and ensuring our economy can continue to prosper and grow.
I could go into how inappropriate it is for Bush to apply judgements of right and wrong to methods for reducing GHG emissions, I could go into the administration’s unwillingness to call for changes in attitudes or behaviors, I could go on at length about the massive capacity we have as individuals to reduce our own footprints without necessarily weakening the economy or reducing energy security, but I won’t.
This isn’t a legitimate strategy to reduce GHG emissions, but rather an attempt to stall and restrict other more earnest efforts. By offering incentives for overtly favored technologies (“clean” coal, nuclear), it’s an appeal to business as usual, the subsidization and deregulation of large energy corporations.
Bush’s claim of progress being made in reducing GHG intensity (a measure of emissions per unit of GDP) is not a result of the administration’s 2002 emission reduction goals, but rather a continuing shift in our economy from manufacturing to service industries.
His newly proposed goals for stopping the growth of US GHG emissions by 2025 falls short of alternative international proposals, and even shorter still of the GHG targets proposed by increasingly ignored climate scientists.
There’s more piss an vinegar over on Grist. I don’t want to write about this anymore.