Following George W. Bush's first official policy speech to Congress, most conservatives were exultant. They remarked on Bush's conspicuous lack of verbal blunders (apparently the only mistake he made, quickly corrected, was calling education "not my top priority"). They marveled at his shrewdness in pitching his tax cut as a Following George W. Bush's first official policy speech to Congress, most conservatives were exultant. They remarked on Bush's conspicuous lack of verbal blunders (apparently the only mistake he made, quickly corrected, was calling education "not my top priority"). They marveled at his shrewdness in pitching his tax cut as a moderate position, rather than an extremist scheme originally crafted to counter tax-flattener Steve Forbes in the primaries. The syndicated columnist Cal Thomas happily concluded that Bush had exceeded expectations -- that he had begun to seem, well, presidential.
But as the coos and gurgles subsided, there was also a rumble of conservative discontent about aspects of Bush's routine. Some doctrinaire righties griped about Bush's triangulating admission that government spending has some role in solving some problems, labeling it Clintonesque. (Did Bush just hint that the era of small government is over?) And a few began to flog Bush for even considering one line he eventually cut from his speech because of pressure from the right.
The line concerned global warming, and more particularly, carbon dioxide emission levels (which, despite gobs of evidence, global warming skeptics deny have any effect on climate change). The day before Bush's speech, the rumor mill divulged that Bush would advocate a cap on CO2 emissions, thereby buying into a so-called "multi-pollutant" approach on reducing greenhouse gases. As the righty columnist and CNN commentator Bob Novak later explained in an annoyed column, this meant "the president was agreeing with Al Gore and the liberals that rising global temperatures are a menace and require radical solutions."
Global warming skeptics, hopping mad, lobbied to get the line thrown out of the speech. The White House apparently complied -- global warming went unmentioned by Bush -- but conservatives still aren't satisfied. Some are concerned that Bush is not only a believer in global warming (gasp), but willing to do something to prevent it. In The Washington Times on March 1st, Christopher C. Horner of the anti-global warming "Cooler Heads Coalition" argued that Bush's apparent openness to CO2 caps might even lead him to endorse the Kyoto protocols:
George Bush repeatedly said that Kyoto is the wrong way to go. But, by capping and regulating CO2, he accepts the proposition that CO2 is harmful. Since CO2 is only alleged to be a threat under the theory of catastrophic global warming, he accepts Kyoto's science. By seeking to cap and regulate CO2, he also adopts its process. So, exactly what about Kyoto doesn't he like?
The past month or so has seen the global warming issue gain increasing momentum, as two successive reports sponsored by the United Nations have shown growing evidence of global warming and predicted dire consequences, including a possible average temperature increase of 10.4 degrees over the next hundred years. This, of course, is not enough to spook global warming skeptics like The American Spectator's R. Emmett Tyrell, who in a recent column titled "Environmentalist Busybodies" wrote of the possible temperature rise: "'Break out the suntan lotion. Let's golf.' The future is going to hold lower heating costs for all, and a return of the mini-skirt."
The Bush administration position on the Kyoto protocols has not yet been clarified, though Bush spoke out against them during the campaign. There's certainly no indication that Bush will lead the U.S. into joining the rest of the world and endorsing Kyoto; he'd have much of his party against him if he did. Nevertheless, there appears to be a (slight) progression in Bush's thinking on global warming.
Originally, the oily Texan could have cared less about global climate change. It was only in 1999, just before his campaign began, that he actually admitted the existence of global warming. Then, during the campaign homestretch, the issue came up again at the October 11th presidential debate. There, Bush seemed to tip his hat to head-in-the-sand global warming skeptics, suggesting to Gore that some scientists were "changing their opinion a little bit on global warming."
But shortly after the debate, Bush's position seemed to shift again. As Novak points out, the campaign released a draft energy policy on October 16th, which proposed regulating "four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." Then, after Bush assumed the presidency, the global warming skeptics must have felt themselves truly beleaguered. First came Bush's treasury secretary Paul O'Neill. The former head of Alcoa, something of an industry global warming activist, distributed copies of a 1998 speech of his at the first cabinet meeting, which said that failing to act immediately on global warming would pose "real danger to civilization."
O'Neill is not the only rat in the cabinet. To the chagrin of some industry leaders, Bush appointed the moderate Republican Christine Todd Whitman to head the Environmental Protection Agency. On February 26th on CNN's Crossfire, Bob Novak asked Whitman about the rumors that Bush's speech would include an endorsement of carbon dioxide regulations. Whitman replied, "[Global warming] does exist. There is a real problem that we as a world face from global warming and to the extent that introducing CO2 to the discussion is going to have an impact . . . that's an important step to take." Even as Bush backed away from mentioning the topic in his policy address to Congress, Whitman announced the administration would be considering limits on CO2 emissions from power plants. (Currently, regulations only touch emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and some forms of mercury.)
As The London Times has speculated, there's always the possibility that this mild scurrying by Bushies on global warming is a bait and switch: Give environmentalists something so that they won't be so mad, then take to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and start drilling. (In fact, Bush made a veiled reference to doing so in his address this week.) Or it could be that the mainstream Republican party is finally shedding the influence of anti-global warming cranks like Craig and Keith Idso of the Center for Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, who wrote recently, "Always remember, CO2 is the elixir of life. Cherish it."
According to The Heat is On author Ross Gelbspan, skeptics like the Idsos may be having their last hurrah. Sure, Bush didn't utter a controversial line about carbon dioxide when he addressed Congress. But with the latest United Nations reports, Gelbspan observes, "the science has become so overwhelming that I really think [the skeptics] are on their way out." And much to some conservatives' chagrin, it looks like Dubya may be tipping his cowboy hat to wish them farewell.
