Globalaffairs

Issue 1/February-March 2007
By Lucia Valero

When President George W. Bush cited the global climate change as “the serious challenge” in his annual State of the Union address in January 23rd, 2007, the reactions across the world were far from being indifferent.

While some politicians considered the statement as the first approach to a major U.S commitment to tackle global warming, media and environmental groups received his words with scepticism for understanding that there were not real measures to be taken as the Government is deeply involved in other issues such as the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.

The truth is, as environmentalists claimed, that the President’s energy initiatives were not dramatically different from those issued in the State of the Union address in 2006, and again were focused on the nation’s addiction of foreign oil and the need to reduce gasoline usage by increasing the supply of alternative fuels, mainly ethanol.
In fact, it was the second year that Bush promoted ethanol as the best alternative to oil and asked for further investments in the so-called “green energy of the future”.

Bush stated, as he did last year, that more researches must be conducted to produce new batteries for hybrid and electric cars in order to have cleaner vehicles.

Nevertheless, what it made a difference from the last State of the Union address –and thereby welcomed by policy makers- was the accurate mention to climate change as a matter to be taken into account.

When global warming is a hot topic that hits the headlines across the world and when American Democrats are beginning to be concerned -former presidential candidate Al Gore is, in fact, trying to make people aware about global warming with his film “An inconvenient truth”- the White House is probably starting to being pushed for a shift on its energy policy.

The conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in February, 2nd, 2007, are also a key factor that might put even more pressure on Bush.

In a powerful report, scientists said that global warming was “unequivocal” and that human activity was “very likely” to blame, causing dramatic climatic changes such as extreme storms, droughts and heat waves as well as a rising of global temperatures trough the century.

As the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, the U.S. should take the report as an empirical proof to act first in cutting carbon emissions. The question that arises is whether Washington would finally take environment debate seriously, as it seemed in the State of the Union address, or will just make empty statements to keep our eyes off the spiralling violence in Iraq and the failure of controlling the region.

To be concrete: Is the United States going to rush into renewable energy?

According to predictions, the issue is by far improbable because the Administration has more problems to deal with such its “war on terrorism”.

Besides, Washington has not implemented –they are just pretending to do so- a convincing renewable energy policy and has refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Finally, the Government should think about the idea of fighting big, money-making energy lobbies –especially oil empires- which seems a hard, uncomfortable task for what the President is not really prepared.

The biofuels alternative

One of the more remarkable points of the Bush’s Biofuels Initiative, his most important programme to go into cleaner energies, is focused on researching the production of cellulosic ethanol, a renewable energy or biofuel that, in the Government opinion, will enable Americans to replace oil consumption in the near future.

In fact, the President’s home, Texas, is building three ethanol plants to transform corn into fuel.

The attempt, which seems positive to tackle global warming in theory it is not as good in practice for two main reasons:

The first one is related to the degree of cleanliness of this form of energy. According to Corpwatch, a website that researches multinationals and Washington movements, ethanol will not contribute to decline carbon dioxide emissions as it is generated by coal, one of the most toxic sources of energy and emitter of carcinogenic pollutants.
What make things even worse is that the main producer of ethanol in the U.S. is Archer Daniels Midland, an agribusiness company ranked as “the tenth worst corporate air polluter” on the Toxic 100 list made by the University of Massachusetts but that has successfully defended its activities by lobbying the White House.

With generous donations, ADM has been beneficiary of Government subsidies including ethanol tax credits and tariffs against foreign ethanol competitors.

What can be deduced from all of this is the following: the “green energy of the future” is not only ironically dirty but also the result of companies strategies to control the energy market.

Courting Washington’s politicians has turn out to be very profitable for ADM, which has obtained the full support of the Bush administration.

The second reason is that even if ethanol was as clean as President George Bush proclaims, the U.S. will need to pull its weight in implementing the biofuels initiative and should force tougher new laws to ensure cleaner and more efficient cars and industries.

Nonetheless, the Government has not planned yet to impose the development of cleaner energies and technologies and has backed improvements in energy efficiency through voluntary emissions reductions and voluntary measures.
Even after the scientific report, the White House has expressed opposition to mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases.

Without forcing companies to introduce greener policies in their activities, the Bush administration shows a lack of commitment with the environment directly in opposition with the attempts to battle climate change.

Maybe the cost of Middle Eastern oil and the need to reduce the high dependence on foreign fuel will help the Government to convince the U.S. businesses to try to invest in new, American sources of energy.

Unfortunately, that not necessarily means –as the Biofuels Initiative proves- the development of clean fuels to cut dirty emissions.

The Exxon question

In March, 13th, 2001, President George W. Bush said that the U.S. would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol alleging that it would be harmful for the nation’s economy, including job losses and transferring industries abroad.

He also refused to ratify it because it did not included developing countries to reduce their emissions.

Considering that Americans are responsible for the 36.1% of carbon dioxide emissions, it was obvious that without their participation the treaty was condemned to failure. Moreover, as a developed country and the first power in the world, the U.S. had the responsibility to set an example and encourage the rest of the countries to be concerned about the environment.

Only then, developing countries as China, that will probably surpass the U.S. in emitting greenhouse gases in few years, would also take measures to cut the burning of fossil fuels.

The treaty was deadly injured and what it was behind the Bush’s refusal to Kyoto was the notorious influence of the world’s largest oil company: Exxon Mobil.

According to Greenpeace, the multinational played an important role in the administration decision and has been responsible for launching a number of campaigns to discredit the treaty, with subsequent negative effects in the environment. Exxon has also been criticised for trying to distort scientific evidences on global warming and deny the climate change for its own economical aims.

The company, that has reported the highest ever annual profit by an American business during 2006, would not like the idea of losing its revenues –which is quite understandable- and, until now, has managed to defend its interests with succeed.

For achieving its goals, Exxon has turned out to be a relevant, if not the most important, economical contributor to the Republican party, contributions that have been translated into indulgent policies towards Exxon’s high polluting activities.

If Washington would like to be serious in rushing into renewable energies, it would have to face Exxon’s fierce opposition.

That will mean embarking on a difficult trip to bite the hands that feeds the administration.

Few expectations

Is it clear that the scientific assessment about climate change as a result of human activity is pushing Bush administration to heed the threatening evidence and move from debate to action.

But it is also true that the influence of energy lobbies in the U.S. policy making are overwhelming and are determining many decisions in the White House. They will also try to convince the public that cutting carbon emissions can be dangerous for the economy and they are likely to find many supporters.

Without acting against them, there will not be any relevant changes: no Kyoto climate protocol and no future agreements when the accord ran out in 2012.

Another point to take into account is that the Government will not very likely to invest money in environmental policies when instability in Iraq is costing millions to taxpayers.

In a country where Federal Funds are more for the defence industry and less for education and health, there should not be place for the environment.

Finally, with George Bush in his last quarter in the White House and not running for presidential elections, he is not going to be worried about losing voters for not implementing green policies.

With a weaker position because of Iraq, the President probably will not try to confront giant energy businesses with more problems to his administration. He and his family is also linked to the oil industry so he will not even consider to take the risk. Global warming is now empirically demonstrated. The effects could be devastating if not irreversible.

But we have to wait for another, more conscious U.S. government to fight against climate change. Until then, we will only have empty debates without any kind of real action.

Lucia Valero
Journalist

Global Affairs is not liable for author’s opinion