Bush Drops a Call For Emissions Cuts

By Eric Pianin and Amy Goldstein
Wednesday, March 14, 2001

President Bush has decided not to seek reductions in the carbon dioxide emissions of the nation's power plants, reversing himself on a campaign pledge after encountering strong resistance from the coal and oil industries and from Republican allies on Capitol Hill.

In a letter yesterday to four Republican senators, Bush cited a recent Energy Department study showing that restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions would result in a shift from coal to natural gas and lead to higher energy costs. "I do not believe . . . that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide," Bush said.

The president's decision was a sharp blow to lawmakers and environmentalists who are seeking to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and are widely thought to contribute to the Earth's rising temperature. It also effectively overruled Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, who had said several times since she took office that Bush would keep his campaign pledge.

Bush's promise to seek a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions had been hailed by environmentalists, who welcomed it as a significant boost to their efforts to limit levels of a pollutant that does not directly harm human health but that many scientists say is altering weather patterns and the ecosystem. Bush's pledge took many environmentalists by surprise, because it went further than Bush's opponent, Vice President Al Gore, who was widely credited for his strong pro-environment views.

The president's reversal was sharply criticized by Democrats and some Republicans who had praised Bush for addressing one of the leading long-term problems associated with global warming. A bipartisan group of Senate and House members led by Sen. James M. Jeffords (R-Vt.) and Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.) plans to introduce a bill Thursday to scale back power plant carbon emissions to 1990 levels.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) called the reversal "a breathtaking betrayal" of Bush's promise to fight global warming. "The administration's reported attempt to blame energy prices for inaction is an embarrassment," he said. "If the administration fails to act, it won't be because of energy prices. It will be because special interests are dictating the president's environmental policies."

But coal and oil industry officials said Bush's decision ensures a more "balanced" energy and environmental policy. Industry spokesmen had warned that any effort to cap carbon emissions would complicate or foil administration efforts to boost domestic energy production.

"There was a great contradiction between mandating carbon dioxide controls on the one hand and developing balanced energy programs on the other, because requiring mandatory controls would drive a stake through the heart of a balanced energy program," said John Grasser of the National Mining Association.

The new administration has slowed the momentum on some of Bush's campaign promises, such as reforming the Social Security system, and equivocated on a few issues, such as its position on research involving fetal stem cells. But the decision on carbon emissions represents the first outright reversal of a stance Bush staked out as a presidential candidate.

As part of what the campaign called "A Comprehensive National Energy Policy," Bush said during a speech Sept. 29 in Michigan that he would "work to make our air cleaner" while promoting electricity and renewable energy. "With the help of Congress, environmental groups and industry," he said, "we will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time."

Bush tweaked Gore for proposing that reductions in those emissions be voluntary. "In Texas, we've done better with mandatory reductions, and I believe the nation can do better," said Bush, then the governor of Texas.

In yesterday's letter, Bush said he intended to work with Congress to reduce other emissions from power plants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury. "Any such strategy would include phasing in reductions over a reasonable period of time, providing regulatory certainty and offering market-based incentives to help industry meet the targets," he said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that carbon dioxide "should not have been included as a pollutant" in Bush's campaign position, because it is not classified as one in the Clean Air Act.

Sen. Larry E. Craig (Idaho), one of four Republican senators who wrote to the president last week expressing their opposition to limits on carbon dioxide emissions, said Bush had wisely refused to be hemmed in by "a campaign document that was not well written."

"If you attempt to regulate carbon dioxide, you will regulate us into a permanent energy crisis in this country," Craig said. "And I think they understand that at the White House now."

Craig and three other Republicans -- Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Jesse Helms (N.C.) and Pat Roberts (Kan.) -- have voiced alarm at efforts by Whitman and other administration officials to revive international talks on a global warming treaty that they and others say would hurt the U.S. economy.

In a Feb. 27 memo to Deputy Secretary of State-designate Richard Armitage, Hagel expressed concern about an anonymous letter he received that described "continued efforts" by two officials held over from the Clinton administration "to quietly and continually negotiate aspects of the Kyoto protocol without any Bush administration oversight and awareness."

"We need to get control of this," Hagel wrote.

Environmental groups that had previously praised Bush for advocating a "multi-pollutant" approach to addressing global warming yesterday criticized the administration for bowing to industry pressures.

"So much for an administration that was trying to appear to care about the environment," said Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust. "The president has acknowledged that global warming is one of the most important environmental issues we face, and one of his first acts is to walk away from his most explicit environmental promise."