In an April 16 Rose Garden speech, President George Bush outlined what was purported to be a new proposal to combat global warming. The speech occurred as representatives of 16 nations met in Paris for the “Major Economies Meeting” (MEM) on climate change.
|
At the core of Bush’s approach is an increase in U.S. carbon emissions until the year 2025. In his speech, he opposed mandatory limits on emissions and called for developing nations to make concessions, saying they should not get “a free ride” in the next international climate agreement.
“There is no way whatsoever that we can agree to what the [United States] is proposing,” said South African Environment and Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk.
“In effect, the United States wants developing countries that already face huge poverty and development challenges to pay for what the [United States] and other highly industrialized countries have caused over the past 150 years,” added van Schalkwyk.
Beyond the absurdity of labeling a proposal that involves an increase in emissions for 15 years or longer a “plan against global warming,” Bush had no new ideas as to how to achieve a reduction in emissions.
Bush called for a “comprehensive blend of market incentives and regulations”to promote clean energy technology. Instead of offering new ideas, Bush discussed programs already in place such the 40 percent increase in auto fuel economy and the increase in the use of ethanol.
When Bush refers to “market-based” solutions to global warming, he is referring to carbon trading and similar schemes. Carbon trading is a system by which the government determines an “acceptable” level of carbon emissions and assigns permission to emit a certain amount of carbon to each company. If a given company emits less than its allotment, that company can sell its “leftover” permission to pollute to another company.
Such systems do not give any voice to workers or other countries in determining how much global warming pollution is acceptable and turns the right to pollute into a tradable commodity. Environmental racism—the disproportionate presence of pollution-generating facilities in or near communities of color in the United States or in oppressed nations abroad—is not addressed in any way.
The problem with ethanol
Ethanol, a bio-fuel produced from corn, is another false U.S.-backed solution to the global warming problem.
First, when compared with fossil fuels gallon for gallon, ethanol has a larger carbon footprint when we consider the energy needed to grow the corn and process it into fuel, together with carbon emissions from burning the fuel.
Second, using crops such as corn for fuel has had a devastating impact on world food prices. The cost of staples such as bread, tortillas and cooking oil, as well as meat and milk continue to skyrocket as food production is displaced to accommodate crops for the highly profitable biofuels market.
Bush’s “plan” would allow U.S. emissions to continue to increase for many years, Yet, according to a Sierra Club statement in response to Bush’s speech: “Scientists tell us that we need to cut total emissions at least 15-20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 in order to prevent the most catastrophic effects of global warming. Merely halting the growth of emissions is grossly insufficient.”
The Sierra Club statement continues, “The Bush administration has brazenly defied the Supreme Court on this issue for over a year, opposed efforts to require more electricity to be generated from renewable sources, and unlawfully denied California and more than 15 other states the right to proceed with landmark global warming emissions standards for vehicles.”
About a year ago, the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide can be regulated under the Clean Air Act and told the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions if such emissions were a danger to the public. At the same time, the Bush administration has done everything in its power to prevent a number of U.S. states from implementing more stringent climate protection laws.
A socialist planned economy is the world’s best bet for drastically reducing emissions while providing sustainable development and a decent standard of living for working people. “Leaders” like Bush represent the interests of the capitalist ruling class, which puts quarterly earnings statements ahead of protecting the environment for current and future generations.
Now more than ever, it is clear that the poor and working people of the planet cannot afford to wait for the capitalist politicians to see the light when it comes to climate change.
