The Washington Post reported that President Bush made the following claim at a fundraiser:
The Post noted immediately that White House “was unable to substantiate the claim” because they really don’t know what other industrialized nations have done.
But does Bush deserve any credit for the unusual U.S. drop in emissions? I say, “yes,” but only in a perverse way — his failed energy policy (and the failed reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry) helped set the stage for sharply increased gasoline prices in 2006, which moderated oil consumption.
The White House claims “Progress is due in part to natural causes, innovation and market forces, and emerging federal, state and local policies.” Uhh, how do “emerging federal … policies” change anything? Answer — they don’t until they actually emerge, which for this Administration is pretty much never.
I have previously noted the actual reasons for the drop in 2006 U.S. carbon dioxide emissions:
1) higher gasoline prices — a 25% jump from 2005
2) a sharp drop in heating demand from an unusually warm winter — thank you, global warming [no, I won't blame this on Bush's failed climate policy -- it will take decades for that to translate into an endless stream of warm winters]
3) a decline in natural gas prices — thanks to the warm winter — and hence more use of this clean fuel for electricity generation.
If you meet someone who repeats the nonsensical claim that Bush’s climate policies had something to do with this emissions drop — presumably they would be happy to take a bet that these policies will continue to reduce emissions. The bet I’d offer on 2007 emissions is to give them $100 for every 0.1% emissions drop this year against $100 for every 0.1% rise this year. I’m sure there will be no takers.
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
You’re ignoring cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. Why? What was the US cumulative growth from 1991-2000? How does that change rate compare to post-2000? What are projected cumulative emissions in 2012 under Bush policy? How does US compare to other nations in cumulative emissions? Please provide a more thorough analysis or risk making your post appear as partisan hackery.
Absent emissions standards, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have tended to rise about 1% per. I’ll be the first to admit that the Clinton Administration did not slow the rate of growth of emissions — though we did face very low oil prices and a booming economy and the Gingrich Congress cut funding for several programs aimed at slowing emissions growth.
Bush has had a recession, a drop in air travel after 9/11, very high energy prices, and some mild winters. Absent those factors, his “policies” have had no noticeable impact. If you think they have, then no doubt you would be quite happy to take my bet about 2007 emissions.
Good news is good news regardless of who or what deserves credit. As to your wager offer, a promise to my wife after getting whipsawed years ago in a Nashville back room poker game precludes me from anything but gentleman betting. May I suggest that a fairer basis for a wager would be the difference up or down from the ten year average GHG increase. Like global temperature analysis, the emphasis would be on the anomaly.
hey, hippie witha pistol, you shouldn’t have guns. Free people should not need guns. But you guys should bet on much the temperture goes up in a year. Find some sceptics with some money haha. Mother Nature has a fever and its just going to get worse before we help her cool down. if we can.