Back during the presidential campaign, Gov. George W. Bush deflected criticism of his questionable environmental record in Texas by pledging one significant new environmental initiative: a national push for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions by power plants. Carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse gas" thought by virtually all scientists to be a major contributor to the increasingly well-documented phenomenon of global warming.
Bush's pledge was important beyond its symbolism. It indicated that perhaps a Bush Administration would not completely pull the plug on diplomatic efforts to convince other countries to agree on an international effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions -- an effort that will only take place if the United States takes the lead. It also separated the Bush candidacy from those on the political Right who either deny that global climate change is occurring, or argue that efforts to slow it down are incompatible with a strong domestic economy.
But on March 12, after intense pressure from conservative activists, coal producers, and some Republicans in Congress, the President reversed his position on carbon dioxide emissions, flatly repudiating Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman. The rationale he gave in a letter to three conservative Senators was that efforts to reduce emissions might interfere with a "balanced energy policy" -- "balanced," in this case, meaning getting rid of any impediment to exploitation of any energy source, whatever the long-term consequences.
The sad thing is that in executing this 180-degree turn the President is implicitly agreeing with those who claim the country must choose between environmental quality and economic growth. In truth, you can combine strong national environmental goals with market mechanisms that make economic and environmental concerns pull in the same direction. For example, the Bush Administration should be pushing for a domestic (and eventually, an international) system of "emissions trading" whereby firms that exceed national standards for reducing greenhouse gas emissions can sell allowances to those who don't, creating a powerful market incentive for cleaner and more efficient technologies while ensuring overall national progress towards the goals.
Aside from its immediate destructive effect on the struggling international negotiations about climate change, the Bush flip-flop on carbon dioxide follows a consistent pattern that is emblematic of his presidency so far. When faced with a fork in the road between centrist, bipartisan policies that could command broad public support, and the wishes of the financial backers, conservative activists, and Congressional poobahs who made him their candidate for President, Bush has invariably switched on the right-hand turn signal and goosed the gas. If this pattern continues, the American people will soon begin to realize that the Administration's idea of bipartisan leadership is to say: "Let's compromise; do it our way." Moreover, questions will legitimately be raised about whether George W. Bush is leading at all, or simply following the lead of a conservative coalition that chose him as their presidential candidate to dress up unpopular policies in new clothes. Like the "emperor's new clothes" of the Andersen fairy tale, Bush's rhetorical commitment to the political center is already wearing mighty thin.
