Why the White House Prefers to Keep the Globe Warming

The United States in Bali had one goal: uphold the status quo. And that's exactly what it got. A status quo global climate change policy in the form of a roadmap that so far leads to nowhere specific and nothing new. Some say it’s even worse than Kyoto.

Worst part? No targets. No dates. And not a word that binds the US (or any nation) to any kind of mandatory emissions control scheme. The US delegation gave an inch on technology transfer but only to resist excessive pushback. Its boss has since caved on that too.

The final plan is absolutely progress-less. But why? What could possibly be so great about the largest economy in the world doing absolutely nothing?

Here’s a best guess. Four of them that underscore why the White House wants -- and needs -- to keep the globe-a-warming.

The old energy economy must triumph.
Bush claims that binding international climate agreements would wreck the US economy. Not true. The US economy would do just fine, and the market for a climate transition promises billions and billions. Climate solutions though would force a shift away from fossil fuels that could strike the coal and oil industries, and the utilities, where it hurts the most: in their bottom lines.

Can’t have that. They may be antiquated, insecure, dangerous, climate polluting, and regressive, but these industries give whopping sums of money to political players to influence energy and climate policy at every level of government. The backbone of the new energy economy -- renewable, clean energy -- doesn’t have a prayer in this system.

It’s a constituency-less enterprise with no lobbyist dollars and zero influence, relative to big coal and oil. Wind and solar didn’t get anyone elected. The administration owes them no favors. And neither does Congress apparently.

China must not pollute its way into economic supremacy. The US and Europe grew their economies on the back of dirty fossil fuels. China is doing the same, with abandon. And you can bet that a rising China sends shivers down the spine of every neo-con. Any agreement that forces the US to reduce emissions while letting the Chinese off scot-free is seen as paving the way forward for its economic competitor to usurp U.S. dominance of world commerce. In other words: It's not fair!

This argument leaves no room for a very probable situation. One in which the US leads China and the entire world toward a radical shift away from fossil fuels that forces developing nations to embrace tempered, environmentally responsible growth. Growth that perhaps leaves everyone better off in the long run.

Long live US isolationist, anti-coexistence foreign policy. Under Bush, the US role in the world is tumultuous. Its alliances are fractured. Its bold, audacious, unilateralist policies elicit unfriendly reactions in uncomfortable numbers. A lonely place to be.

Of course, it's their policy of choice, and its wielded through strong US action abroad and measured coexistence and engagement. Forceful leadership built on the righteousness of American power and just about nothing else. A UN-brokered deal without US support is going to languish and die in this political construct. And that’s the point! Evidence Bali. Bush victory all the way.

Climate change, shmimate change. Bush had a climate change conversion in ’07. He attributed it to the definitive science that came out of the IPCC report early in the year. Don't buy the lip service for a second. This is a do-nothing climate president through and through, insensitive to the world's climate woes. Bush has obstructed every international effort and hasn't backed a single policy that suggests climate change is of any interest, ever. And don't expect it. The climate denial machine at the White House has been well-documented. And it's seemingly here to stay.

• ‹ previous
• up
• next ›