Recent events have focused a spotlight on the Bush administration’s position
on climate change on both the international and national stage.
On June 7, national science academies from 11 countries (including the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences) issued a joint statement, saying that “the
scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify
nations taking prompt action.” They called on the Group of 8 (G8) countries,
which are most responsible for global greenhouse emissions, to act immediately
in adopting and developing technology for climate change mitigation. Meanwhile,
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has made climate change a leading issue for
his tenure as president of the European Union, which began July 1, and for the
G8 meeting held from July 6 to 8, in Gleneagles, Scotland.
On July 8, the G8 countries issued a post-meeting statement saying they agree
that climate change is real and “that human activity is contributing to
it, and that it could affect every part of the globe.” But no movement
forward stemmed from the meeting on how to tackle the issues. Although President
Bush acknowledged the “need to control greenhouse gases” in a speech
in Denmark before the G8 meeting, some observers say that his administration’s
policy is to avoid any economic repercussions, which has stalled federal emissions
regulations. The Bush administration is “still arguing [that there is]
uncertainty in the science,” says Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew
Center on Global Climate Change.
Although the United States is not party to the Kyoto Protocol, it participates
in the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and must report its mitigation
actions. The Bush administration says that programs it has initiated to encourage
companies to voluntarily cut emissions, among other measures, will help to cut
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2012. John Marburger, science advisor to the
president and head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in
June that “the United States will spend $5.2 billion in fiscal year 2005
on climate change science research, advanced energy technologies, voluntary
programs, and related international assistance — far more than any other
nation.”
In Congress, the U.S. Senate again rejected a McCain-Lieberman amendment on
June 22 that would have capped carbon emissions and set up an emissions-trading
system. On the Senate floor, some senators questioned whether climate change
is real, saying that they supported the Bush administration’s position
that any control measures would harm the national economy. Still, on the same
day, the Senate passed a nonbinding resolution that says that a majority of
its membership is committed to supporting a program of mandatory controls on
emissions. The agreement marks “the first time a majority of senators went
on the record saying that the issues are real, and that we need to move forward
to finding resolutions sooner rather than later,” says Peter Frumhoff,
senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit environmental
and arms control advocacy group.
In conjunction with the June activity in Congress and the statement from the
national academies, the business community also issued a call for action on
climate change through the World Economic Forum on June 9. Twenty-four international
companies, including BP, Petrobras and SwissRe, signed a statement that encouraged
the G8 to act, to create a sustainable business climate with regard to emissions
caps and other policy issues.
Drawing more attention to the Bush administration’s climate change policy,
The New York Times reported on June 8 that the chief of staff of the
U.S. Climate Change Science Program (a coordinating body within the Executive
Branch) watered down language in scientific reports from federal agencies that
addressed global climate change. A leak from a former federal employee showed
that Philip Cooney, a lawyer and former lobbyist for the American Petroleum
Institute, changed language in or added caveats to reports. On June 10, Cooney
stepped down from his position and will start working with ExxonMobil’s
public affairs division this fall.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said in a press briefing that Cooney was
one of many people involved in interagency reviews of such documents. “Our
reports are based on the best scientific knowledge,” McClellan said. “The
Office of Science and Technology Policy is involved very much in this process,
and the head of that office [Marburger] is a well-respected scientist. And he
has signed off on these reports because they’re based on sound science.”
Naomi Lubick
 |
Geotimes Home | AGI Home | Information Services | Geoscience Education | Public Policy | Programs | Publications | Careers  |