Bush and energy crisis

spencer abraham today signaled exactly where this \"energy crisis\" will
go next: rolling blackouts for all 9 western states this summer, higher
rates, shelved environmental regulations...

i haven\'t seen a general strike in my lifetime. it\'s time.

our ultimatum: declare state of emergency, seize ALL assets of all
electrical generating and distributing corporations in California (for a
start). (after this, do we ever want to have to deal with these
corporations ever again?)

a California general srtike of one day would get a lot of attention.

let\'s mimic those stupid conservation TV commercials. something like:

\"take back some control over your power supply and your future - take a
sick day tomorrow. you can send a strong message to Governor Davis and
PG&E - and it\'s not even hard.\"

Bush Won\'t Regulate Carbon Dioxide

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
.c The Associated Press


WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Wednesday he backed off his campaign
promise to regulate carbon dioxide emissions because of the country\'s energy
problems and not because of pressure from industry lobbyists.

``I was responding to realities and the reality is our nation has a real
problem when it comes to energy,\'\' Bush said, reiterating that he fears
limits on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants would increase
electricity prices.

Bush told reporters he is concerned that regulating carbon dioxide emissions
would hinder the efficiency of coal-burning power plants and force greater
use of natural gas, whose price this winter spiked to more than double last
year\'s level.

Coal, which accounts for half of the nation\'s electricity generation, has
been a relatively cheap fuel for power production.

The president denied criticism from environmentalists and some congressional
Democrats that he acted in response to pressure from industry officials. The
utility industry has lobbied the White House in recent weeks against
regulation of carbon dioxide, a leading heat-trapping ``greenhouse\'\' gas
that scientists say is causing a warming of the Earth.

``This administration will enforce the clean-air laws of the country,\'\' Bush
said. ``We\'ve got an energy crisis in America that we have to deal with in a
commonsense way.\'\'

Bush, in a letter Tuesday to Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. said that while he
took the issue of climate change ``very seriously\'\' he would not support
legislation to regulate carbon dioxide, which is a product of burning fossil
fuels.

His reversal, from a position taken during his campaign, brought sharp
criticism from environmentalists and some congressional Democrats and
moderate Republicans.

Rep. Harry Waxman, D-Calif., called it ``a breathtaking betrayal\'\' of the
president\'s campaign promise made on Sept. 29 in which he pledged to support
emission controls on several chemicals from power plants including carbon
dioxide.

The reversal came as three Republican moderates prepared this week to join
Democrats in introducing legislation that would require power plants to
curtail carbon dioxide by 2007.

Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., a sponsor of the proposed bill, said
Wednesday he was ``profoundly disappointed\'\' with the president\'s reversal
and that he would proceed with the legislation anyway.

Boehlert dismissed Bush\'s explanation that controlling carbon dioxide would
lead to higher electricity prices, noting that utilities would have years to
deal with the issue and that by then the current electricity price problems
likely would have been addressed.

``He took the right stand on Sept. 29 during the campaign when he endorsed
controlling carbon dioxide emissions,\'\' Boehlert said in a statement. ``None
of the information cited in his letter to explain the change was unknown on
Sept. 29.\'\'

Carbon dioxide never has been classified as a pollutant under the Clean Air
Act because it has no detrimental human health or environmental impact
except as it applies to concerns about global warming.

Bush\'s letter came a week after Hagel and three other GOP senators - Larry
Craig of Idaho, Jesse Helms of North Carolina and Pat Roberts of Kansas -
raised concerns directly to the president about the administration\'s views
on climate change and the carbon dioxide issue.

Recently, EPA Administrator Christie Whitman had embraced the idea of
requiring power plants to limit carbon dioxide emissions as part of a
broader package of regulations that also would address mercury, smog-causing
nitrogen oxide and sulfur releases that cause acid rain.

This ``four-pollutant strategy\'\' had been part of Bush\'s energy package
announced in September and marked one of the few specific proposals he
ventured on the subject of climate change.

Whitman reasserted the pledge in a series of interviews and again at a
recent meeting in Italy with environmental ministers from major industrial
countries. She characterized the proposal as evidence that the United States
was intent on addressing the issue of climate change.

Vice President Dick Cheney told some senators Tuesday that the campaign
position on carbon dioxide was a mistake and that Whitman was simply ``a
good soldier\'\' in reasserting the campaign pledge, according to
congressional sources who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Explaining the shift, Bush aides said they did not realize during the
campaign that carbon dioxide was not a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
Ironically, the president in his recent address to Congress, originally had
planned a reference to the ``four-pollutant\'\' strategy, but the remark was
removed at the last minute, according to sources familiar with the issue.

Whitman, the former New Jersey governor, could not be reached late Tuesday
on the matter.

Her recent remarks unleashed an intense lobbying campaign by the coal and
utility industries which would be most affected. The Edison Electric
Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, made clear it strongly
opposed mandatory controls on carbon dioxide.

And critics of the Kyoto climate accord renewed charges that Bush - as they
often had accused the Clinton administration of doing - was embarking on a
``backdoor implementation\'\' of the treaty, which has yet to be ratified by
the Senate. The Kyoto accord requires industrial countries to cut greenhouse
gas emissions back to 1990 levels.

On the Net:

National Environmental Trust: http://www.environet.org

Natural Resources Defense Council: http://www.nrdc.org

Global Climate Coalition: http://www.globalclimate.org

Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov