[More on Global Warming | Bush]
GIVEN ALL THE fuss about what government officials in Washington say off the record, it's surprising how little attention is paid to some of the things they say on the record. Take, for example, the subject of U.S. emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. Earlier this month [14dec2005 editorial below], we noted that the emissions figures cited by U.S. officials attending the international climate change conference in Montreal seemed dubious: Although the negotiators claimed U.S. emissions had fallen by 0.8 percent between 2000 and 2003, that drop actually reflected the recession of 2000-2001, not any substantive environmental policy change. In fact, as we noted, emissions had begun rising again in 2002 and 2003, and they looked set to rise again in 2004 — to levels higher than they reached in 2000.
James L. Connaughton [right] of the White House Council on Environmental Quality disputed our editorial; he noted, among other things, that the 2004 figures had not yet been published. But now the Energy Information Administration, one of two government agencies that tracks climate statistics (the Environmental Protection Agency is the other) has released its 2004 numbers. As many predicted, they show a hefty 2 percent rise in greenhouse gas emissions, the largest growth in five years. Thanks to that rise, U.S. emissions now account for about 25 percent of the world's total. When the EPA figures are released, they are expected to show the same trend, despite the EPA's different methods of calculation.
What, then, of Mr. Connaughton's other claim — that the Bush administration has put in place "more than 60 mandatory, incentive-based and voluntary federal programs" to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases? An earlier version of that claim was examined two years ago by the Government Accountability Office. Its report, published in October 2003, noted that of the 30 elements of the administration's then-recently proclaimed agenda on greenhouse gases, only three were new programs — as opposed to existing, repackaged programs — that were actually intended to reduce future emissions in a measurable way. If it can't get its numbers right, why should we take seriously the White House's declared intention to forge a "constructive and effective approach" to climate change at all?
p.A24
source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/26/AR2005122600781_pf.html 27dec2005
THERE'S BEEN talk of President Bush's lame-duck status, and much of it's been premature. But the recent global negotiations on climate change in Montreal left the Bush team quacking on the sidelines. The administration started out opposing the whole idea of the meeting, but the rest of the world went ahead anyway, inviting former president Bill Clinton to speak in Montreal as a sort of ersatz head of state. While the Bush representatives refused to agree to anything but vague discussions about voluntary measures, local government officials and business representatives made it clear that the Bush administration does not speak for them. "Even though the U.S. at the moment isn't being very constructive in the negotiations, this might change over time," Denmark's negotiator observed.
The administration refused to engage in the Montreal talks because it dislikes the firm numerical commitments to emissions reduction that were part of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and that will also be part of the successor agreement discussed in outline last week. The Bush team argues that mandatory targets are inflexible and burdensome, while voluntary arrangements between governments and business can cut emissions adequately. But the implied dichotomy between supposedly rigid command-and-control regulation and the administration's supple voluntarism is illusory.
The Kyoto agreement, like the deal that hopefully will succeed it when Kyoto expires in 2012, stipulates firm emissions targets but allows flexibility as to how to get there. Countries can either control their emissions or, if this proves unacceptably expensive, buy carbon credits from others who find emissions control cheaper. In Montreal last week, various enhancements to this flexibility were considered: For example, countries might control carbon emissions by preserving forests, then sell the resulting carbon credits to countries that need or want to emit more climate-warming fumes. The aim of this regime is not to tell countries, still less individual companies, how much they can pollute. It is to set targets for environmental sustainability and then create flexible mechanisms for getting there.
Paradoxically, the administration's voluntarism is rather less supple. If governments don't create tradable credits or other market incentives to reduce pollution, the only way they can get firms to cut emissions is by "persuading" them: This may not count as command-and-control, but it smacks a bit of arm-twist-and-bribe. Moreover, a supposedly pro-business administration ought to understand that the worst thing for firms is regulatory uncertainty. The Bush policy of refusing to take part in talks on emissions caps creates uncertainty aplenty, because the rest of the world regards this stance as unsustainable. Companies don't know what to expect from a future U.S. administration when the current one leaves office, so how can they make intelligent, voluntary decisions about their carbon emissions?
p.A28
source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/13/AR2005121301501_pf.html 27dec2005
Biography of James L. Connaughton
from whitehouse website 27dec2005
James L. Connaughton was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on June 14 and appointed by President Bush on June 18, 2001 to serve as the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). In this capacity, he serves as the senior environmental and natural resources advisor to the President as well as Director of the White House Office of Environmental Policy, which oversees the development of environmental policy, coordinates interagency implementation of environmental programs, and mediates key policy disagreements among Federal agencies, state, tribal and local governments and private citizens.
During President Bush’s first term, Mr. Connaughton coordinated the development of major Administration initiatives including the national clean air strategy; healthy forests restoration legislation; historic multi-billion expansion of Farm Bill conservation programs; the new wetlands restoration initiative to increase overall wetlands acres and quality; the expansion and acceleration of clean-up and redevelopment of abandoned industrial sites known as brownfields; comprehensive climate change strategy; clean technology initiatives; environmental cooperation agreements with our free trade partners; G-8 action plan and international partnerships for sustainable development; and implementation of modernized environmental management systems across the federal government.
Prior to joining the Bush Administration, Mr. Connaughton was a partner in the law firm Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, in its Environmental Practice Group, covering a wide range of environmental policy issues, such as environmental management and compliance assurance systems, legislation, regulation, international trade and standards, and ecological risk and natural resource damages assessment.
From 1993 until 2001, Mr. Connaughton served as one of the lead U.S. negotiators of the ISO 14000 series of international environmental consensus standards. Mr. Connaughton also worked with officials from U.S. EPA, California EPA, and the Environmental Law Institute to help form the Multi-State Work Group on Environmental Management Systems ("MSWG").
Mr. Connaughton has extensive experience helping organizations large and small become responsible environmental stewards through effective environmental management and compliance assurance systems. This work has covered the electronics, transportation, consumer products, home improvement, energy management, and mining sectors, in North America, Mexico, Venezuela and Asia.
Mr. Connaughton began his career working on behalf of asbestos victims who worked in the major construction trades.
Mr. Connaughton is a graduate of Yale University and graduated second in his class, magna cum laude, Order of the Coif, from the Northwestern University School of Law. At Northwestern, he was an Austin Scholar and served as Coordinating Articles Editor of the Northwestern University Law Review. Following Law School, he clerked for U.S. District Judge Marvin Aspen in the Northern District of Illinois.
Mr. Connaughton is an avid vocal harmony singer, sailor, scuba diver, and beachcomber.
source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/connaugton-bio.html 27dec2005
|
To
send us your comments, questions, and suggestions click
here |