PS297

The Burning Bush

Not too long ago the threat of global warming was on everybody’s tongue. The causes of global warming, and what the United States was doing to thwart this looming threat were in serious deliberation across the airwaves and Capitol Hill. More recently, the U.S. has been jaw-struck with the surfacing of disturbing Iraq incidents, effectively overshadowing most aspects of global warming. The question still lingers: What is President Bush doing to combat global warming? Additionally, what has influenced President Bush’s current stance on global warming? The answer to the former is complicated, to say the least. President Bush is of a “pro-man” mentality that (while not necessarily anti-nature) tries to set a reasonable balance between “what we should do” versus “what we want.” This balancing act yields relatively little “pro-nature” fruit, given that time and time again the policies relative to global warming tend to be favorable towards businesses and the economy – showing that the balancing act is either deliberately misleading, or unintentionally fallible. From a distance it seems as though the answer to the latter is that President Bush’s stance on global warming is based on a combination of corporate-interest influence; personal vested interest in the oil, energy, and transportation industries; and a somewhat distorted interpretation of the strengths of the United States’ free-market system. However, in order to fully understand the scope of global warming policies and relative actions by the Bush Administration, it is important to understand global warming.

Global warming is considered amongst the majority of the scientific community to be a real, immediate, and dangerous threat. The National Resources Defense Council has confirmed that in the last century the earth’s average temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit, “and will likely rise even more rapidly in coming decades.1” They say that unless measures are taken to reduce U.S. emissions, “…temperatures could rise another 3 to 9 degrees by the end of the century…Sea levels will rise, flooding coastal areas. Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often. Disease-carrying mosquitoes will expand their range. And species will be pushed to extinction.1” A report recently leaked from the Pentagon contained a “worst-case” theory that attempted to forecast the social implications of global warming. One section of the report said that, “…abrupt climate change over the next 20 years would throw the world into a state of anarchy -- dwarfing the current threat of terrorism. In this doomsday scenario, large-scale droughts, famine brought on by food shortages and reduced energy supplies could cause riots around the globe that could culminate in nuclear warfare.2” Regardless of this information, there are still individuals and organizations – as well as the Bush Administration – that question the validity of these claims.

While it may seem like the President is doing a variety of subtle things to curtail a decrease in the U.S. contribution to global warming, there is (as is always the case) another side to the story. President Bush, in a speech discussing global climate change, stated that, “…our useful efforts to reduce sulfur emissions may have actually increased warming, because sulfate particles reflect sunlight, bouncing it back into space. And, finally, no one can say with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level of warming, and therefore what level must be avoided.5” This statement was made shortly after our withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. He also stated that, “…we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it.8” Regardless of the level of knowledge the Bush Administration asserts, they will acknowledge that, “…the United States is the world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases. We account for almost 20 percent of the world's man-made greenhouse emissions.8” This slant on the facts is a means by which the Bush Administration can justify their global warming policies – yet the justification seems to be lacking.

Policies and actions/statements on the part of the Bush Administration are growing continuingly questionable. The Kyoto Protocol, an international pact between applicable nations aimed at achieving pre-determined greenhouse gas reductions by 2012, was admonished and then withdrawn from by the United States in 2001 (although it was never officially ratified by congress). President Bush’s reasoning was, “The Kyoto Protocol was fatally flawed in fundamental ways… [It] failed to address two major pollutants that have an impact on warming: black soot and tropospheric ozone. Both are proven health hazards…Kyoto is, in many ways, unrealistic. Many countries cannot meet their Kyoto targets. The targets themselves were arbitrary and not based upon science…complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases for consumers.5”

In place of this ungratified pact, “…Bush proposed using tax incentives to persuade companies and consumers to decrease pollutants like nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury by 18 percent in 10 years…More businesses will be asked to report their greenhouse gas emissions voluntarily.3” More recently the Bush Administration has, “…decided to allow thousands of the nation's dirtiest coal-fired power plants and refineries to upgrade their facilities without installing costly anti-pollution equipment, as they now must do [under the Kyoto Protocol]…Under the rule change, industry could potentially save billions of dollars in pollution-control equipment costs while continuing to emit hundreds of thousands of tons of pollutants.4” From the perspective of President Bush, this course, called the Clear Skies act of 20037, offers a more reasonable approach to maintain steady economic growth amongst independent energy providers, while also doing something about global warming, and the environment in general. But there are other issues to consider.

The Bush Administration seems to have been trying to either undermine or “play-down” the seriousness of global warming. President Bush’s comments acknowledging the existence and seriousness of global warming come as a huge contrast to recent developments in government-sponsored global warming studies. The Bush Administration is under scrutiny for allegedly trying to reduce, “…the impact of global warming.9” The situation entails that, “…emails and internal government documents…show that officials have sought to edit or remove research warning that [global warming] is serious. They have enlisted the help of conservative lobby groups funded by the oil industry to attack US government scientists if they produce work seen as accepting too readily that pollution is an issue.10”

President Bush has said repeatedly that there is an economic-impact aspect to consider when contemplating status quo policies concerning global warming. However, there has been little information provided by the administration that attempts to explain the enormous pitfalls that environmental acts like the Kyoto Protocol inflict on our economy. In place of hard-numbers, he has offered rhetoric. Proponents offer little else that support his claims – any support offered is unclear, inconsistent, and generally lacking in reason – and opponents to initiatives like the Clear Skies Act of 2003 say that this continuing denial of science and obvious favor of businesses versus the environment – particularly global warming issues – is indicative of the Bush Administration’s past affiliations.3, 5, 9

Skepticism over President Bush’s previous affiliations and influence has existed since the beginning of the Bush campaign – this includes his failed attempt to win a seat in congress, his win as Governor of Texas, and his highly criticized Presidential “win” in 2000. Indeed, President Bush’s cabinet is composed of an assortment of people who have had previous relationships and dealings with numerous oil, energy, and transportation companies. John Ashcroft, the U.S. Attorney General, has ties with Enterprise Rent-A-Car; Spencer Abraham, the U.S. Secretary of Energy, has ties with General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and Lear; Collin Powell, the U.S. Secretary of State, has ties to Golfstream Aerospace; Norman Y. Mineta, the Secretary of Transportation, has ties with Lockheed Martin, Northwest Airlines, Greyhound, United Airlines, Union Pacific, and Boeing; Condoleezza Rice, President Bush’s National Security Advisor, has ties with Chevron, Charles Schwab, and Transamerica Corporation. Regardless of whether or not these relationships still play pivotal roles in the decisions of these cabinet members, one can’t help but notice the interesting policies and incidents that have transpired in favor of these industries.

Aside from the rumors and opinions foretelling of improvable Iraqi-oil conspiracies, Halliburton serves as a significant factor in analyzing oil-industry relations. The United States awarded Halliburton – a multi-purpose company once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney – numerous no-bid contracts in Iraq. These contracts provide hundreds of millions of dollars to the company – casting doubt over the republican President’s creed of “small government” intervention in the United States free-market. When asked about his 2000 running-mate’s past affiliations with the oil industry President Bush said, “Dick Cheney is a person who loves America and cares about the future of the country, just like I do.14” Controversy arose when President Bush named Cheney the head of the Energy Policy Development Working Group. Democrats and environmentalists saw this appointment as a conflict of interest, but Bush believed that “…the vice president's history with the industry would not lead him to favor it over consumers.14” This belief would soon be called into question.

The now bankrupt Enron, a company said to have strong ties to the Bush Administration, particularly President George W. Bush, “…has contributed more than $500,000 to Bush's political activities, starting with his Texas gubernatorial campaigns. As recently as Oct. 16, with a crisis atmosphere swirling around Enron, the company gave $60,000 to the Republican National Committee.10” The company has also, “…given more than $2 million to the Bush campaign and other GOP causes.11” On a general note, “An analysis of his fund raising by the campaign finance group Texans for Public Justice found that $5.6 million of the $41 million Bush raised for his two gubernatorial races came from the energy and natural resources industries.12” These close ties between Enron and President Bush “…and other politicians [existed] to encourage further deregulation of the energy industry.11” Other members of President Bush’s cabinet have served in several capacities with Enron, most notably, “…the president's chief economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, and the top trade negotiator, Robert Zoellick, [have] served as advisers to the company. Secretary of the Army Thomas White was an Enron executive before joining the administration.11” When Bush’s energy policy was initially being drafted, Dick Cheney “…met with…Enron executives. Enron was reportedly the only company to be granted such a meeting.11” This “favoritism” with an energy company shows how far the Bush Administration is willing to go to incorporate corporate-interests in policy-making. When Cheney was asked by the General Accounting Office to provide information about the meetings, he, “…declined to turn over documents about his meetings with Enron and others interested in the energy policy he was developing.11” Aside from Halliburton and Enron, there have been other policies that illustrate the relationships that the Bush Administration perpetuates through “favoritism.”

The oil industry, aside from Bush’s own rocky history in the industry, plays a significant role in contributions and favors. When Bush was running for the presidential seat, oil industry contributed more than “…$1.5 million into George W. Bush's campaign.13” The influence of the oil industry is not completely one-sided. One of the first major pieces of legislation that Bush helped pass while Governor of Texas “…was a $45 million tax break for small oil and natural gas producers.12”

Wood-burning – another contributor to global warming – is also relative to the Bush Administration’s questionable policy endeavors. Forestry and Forest Products industries contributed $298,500 to the 2000 Bush campaign. Shortly after his 2000 election, President Bush, “…decided to remove federal protections and leave the decisions for road building in national forests to the very people who endanger the forests in the first place – Timber interests.6”

But what does this information suggest? The answer, though speculative, is that regardless of the intent behind these relationships, there exists a need to eliminate all conflicts of interest – especially in civil-service positions. The Bush Administration’s numerous ties to various oil, energy, and transportation industries suggests that there is a significant presence of misconduct given the inordinate amount of policies passed in favor of those respective industries, and statements (or lack of statements) that have developed over the course of President Bush’s political career. His stance on global warming, therefore, is directly related to those relationships that “discretionally” exist. When Bush appoints a man (Dick Cheney) who once headed a leading oil-related company (Halliburton) as the leader of the Energy Policy Development Working Group, and that man proceeds to conduct closed-door meetings with Enron, one can’t help but speculate on the reasoning. When Bush proposes tax-cuts for the oil industry, or offers “voluntary” abidance of the Clear Skies Act in contrast to “requirements” made in the Kyoto Protocol, those policies directly affect the Bush Administration’s stance on global warming.

You are the

person to visit this site!