The End of Bush’s Earth Days
With Bush out of the White House next year, future Earth Days should signal real policy change on the environment.
By Kate Sheppard
April 22, 2008
President Bush delivers remarks on the climate, Wednesday, April 16, 2008, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)Today marks the 39th celebration of Earth Day, and it's been pretty hard not to notice the occasion this year. There are scores of special "green" editions of major magazines on newsstands across the country, from New York Times Magazine to Time and Vanity Fair. Over the weekend, Dallas, Miami, Washington, D.C., and five other major cities across the country hosted the Green Apple Music Festival, with musical performances to rock out for the planet. While rock bands performed for earth lovers on the national mall, Capitol Hill, unfortunately, has long been silent. Yet the next year yields an unprecedented opportunity for change, and the possibility that the 40th anniversary of the holiday will mark a new era in Washington for ending global warming.
Most notably, this is the last Earth Day we'll celebrate under the administration of George W. Bush, who until recently didn’t even publicly acknowledge that global warming exists. Last week, Bush outlined a plan for "halting the growth" of U.S. emissions by 2025—but the plan doesn't call for mandatory cuts or enforcement mechanisms, and it would mean 17 more years of unfettered emissions. It's just the most recent example that this administration isn't at all serious about action on global warming. In the past year alone, it successfully deployed the threat of veto to prevent a truly progressive energy bill and placed cronies in the Environmental Protection Agency to destroy it from the inside. The EPA recently blocked efforts from California that would cut statewide auto emissions by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016. The action sets a precedent to block 18 other states that pledged to follow in California’s footsteps. Last week's speech was the final signal that Bush intends to do nothing about climate change and is simply waiting for the clock to run out. This is particularly upsetting because Americans—especially young Americans—disagree with this approach. In a recent MTV/CBS poll of young voters, for example, respondents ranked the environment as the second most important issue facing our country in the next 20 years.
But there are already hopeful developments underway for the post-Bush era. While Bush has been stalling, Congress has been brewing climate change legislation, and the Senate’s Climate Security Act, co-sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA), stands a chance of passing this year. The bill calls for emissions reductions of up to 70 percent by 2050 through a cap-and-trade system, in which companies in the energy industry would be allotted a certain number of pollution credits. Industries that exceed allotted credits would be forced to buy more permits from those that emit less than their limit. Unfortunately, the Lieberman-Warner bill isn't as tough as it should be; the bill would be even better with an auction-based cap-and-trade system, which would result in upwards of $2 trillion in revenue that could be used to fund alternative energy development and green jobs programs. Yet the mere fact that climate legislation is now not only possible but probably is a major advancement in just one year. Other major strides in this Congress have included the creation of the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, chaired by environmental champion Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA).
The biggest possibility for change in the next year, though, is the presidential election. No matter who lands in the White House, he or she is almost guaranteed to take office with a more progressive stance on climate and environment than Bush. Both Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have put forward climate plans that call for emissions cuts to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050—the kinds of cuts current science says we need to avert climate catastrophe. Each candidate has also called for 100 percent auction of carbon credits, the proceeds of which would be used for programs beneficial to the public—like investing in renewable energy, offsetting energy price increases for low- and middle-income Americans, weatherizing homes, or creating green job training programs.
John McCain hasn’t come out with a comprehensive plan like the Democratic candidates. However, unlike his GOP colleagues Sen. James Inhofe and Rep. Joe Barton, McCain actually believes that climate change is real, is caused by human activity, and is a threat. In the past he has been a leader on climate, co-sponsoring the first piece of legislation on the issue in the Senate in 2003. He maintains that global warming will be one of his top three issues as president. McCain has the potential to be a strong actor on climate change in the White House, but there's considerable pressure on him from the right to downplay his stance on this issue. Pressure from voters to put forward a strong climate plan is especially important in the case of McCain if we want to ensure that, should he win next November, his administration is not a second iteration of Bush's, at least in terms of climate change.
Despite the strengths all of each of these candidates, you don't often hear about their climate and energy plans. In a total of 21 debates during the Democratic primary (many of which were sponsored by the coal industry, incidentally), the total number of questions related to climate, energy, or environment could be counted on a single pair of hands. Of course this is an election jam-packed with conversation about the economy, the Iraq war, and health care. But global warming is just as pressing a concern, and it's incumbent upon voters, especially young voters, to make sure the environment doesn't fall through the cracks.
So instead of just planning a music festival next year, we should start thinking about achievable policy changes. The pieces are in place for action, but there is still a long way to go. Voters can call their elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, to make sure that as the committees mark up the Lieberman-Warner sponsored legislation it takes a more aggressive stance on global warming, not a less aggressive one. As the presidential election nears this fall, voters can demand that the environment is part of the media coverage and debates. Next year, hopefully we’ll start leaving the foot-dragging of the Bush years behind.
Kate Sheppard is a writing fellow at The American Prospect. She graduated from Ithaca College in 2006.
Social Bookmarking
--------
Comments
Leave a comment about this article below. For more discussion, visit our community page and sign up for your own Campus Progress blog!
!
