Brian,

I got  a kick out of the columnist you quoted from the Economist ... Which
Bush is he referring to?? I have a really hard time thinking of our current
President as "timid" ...  Could it be that there is a genuine difference of
opinion here as to what the goals are as well as the methodology??  Or
aren't differences of opinion allowed?

Ronald W. Gedney
tel: 703-834-2084
fax: 703-834-2735


-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Ellis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 7:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [EN] Pie in the sky!


My apologies if I allowed my feelings get the better of me. However,
yesterday's Economist agrees that the whole thing is a putative
wool-pulling-over-the-eyes-exercise. Partial quotation:

"............. So what exactly does Mr Bush's policy contain of
substance? The 18% target for reductions over the next decade sounds
impressive. But Mr Bush is not talking about reducing emissions of GHGs,
only emissions intensity --- that is, the level of emissions per unit of
economic output. That is utterly inadequate as a target since it is a
virtual guarantee of much higher absolute levels of GHG emissions in a
decade.

"The notion of improving America's registry for GHG emissions is
certainly a good one. Done properly, it would help firms take stock of
their actual emissions, & could set the foundation for a sensible scheme
for trading emissions credits. What is more, existing registry schemes
like America's Toxics Release Inventory, which forces companies to
disclose details of their use of chemicals, achieve environmental goals
not through red tape but through the 'power of sunshine': the fear of
appearing at the top of the list of polluters encourages firms to clean
up their act. But for any reporting system to be meaningful, it must be
mandatory --- & Mr Bush is too timid to suggest that.

"The president raises the possibility of an effective trading scheme
only in the distant future, long after he has left office. If his
voluntary measures do not help the economy to meet his voluntary
emissions target (however that is measured), he promises much tougher
action in 2012: possibly a market based programme, extra incentives &
more --- wait for it 'voluntary measures'.

"What a sham. As Eileen Claussen of the Pew Centre says, 'This is just
an effort to cloak --- business as usual --- in some finery. Emissions
will continue to grow.' Mr Bush was right to reject the prohibitively
expensive Kyoto pact, but he promised a substantial & cost-effective
domestic policy to take its place. This is not it. As the president
himself might say, his proposal is all --- hat & no cattle."

No further comment.

Best regards,

Brian

Brian Ellis wrote:
>
> Hi, all!
>
> I carefully listened to President Bush's speech yesterday. I have
> nothing to say re SO2/NOx reductions, other than that the US may catch
> up with the rest of the developed world, one day. I must say, however,
> that I don't like the notion of trading pollution.
>
> However, his proposals for CO2 reduction are nothing better than a scam:
> an 18% reduction over 10 years, linked to the GDP. Taking an index of 1
> for 2002, and assuming an average 2% growth in the GDP (much less than
> the average over the last decade), the index becomes 1.219 in 2012. 18%
> less than that is 0.9996. In other words, if the economy is relatively
> slow, there will be no real reduction in permitted CO2 emissions and, if
> it is good, then there will be an increase. And he calls this a
> breakthrough in pollution management. It is no wonder he was smirking
> throughout his presentation. Whom does he think he is fooling?
>
> Clean skies or pie in the sky?
>
> Brian