Bush Drops Pledge to Curb Emissions

Abandoning a campaign pledge, President Bush has decided not to begin regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, saying he is concerned that the action could increase already heightened energy prices.

The decision, which he expressed in a letter to four Republican senators Tuesday, marked the first time that Bush has reversed a promise he made during last year’s presidential campaign.

“At a time when California has already experienced energy shortages, and other Western states are worried about price and availability of energy this summer, we must be very careful not to take actions that could harm consumers,” Bush said in the letter.

The action was a victory for coal interests and other industries--from auto makers to appliance manufacturers--that were worried about facing carbon dioxide emission restrictions. “This is indeed good news,” said John Grasser, a spokesman for the National Mining Assn.

But it appeared to undercut Environmental Protection Agency chief Christie Whitman, and it opened Bush to fierce criticism from environmentalists, who accused him of backing away from one of his few environmentally friendly initiatives.

“He has turned his back on the overwhelming science that shows the planet is in danger from carbon dioxide,” said David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “This snuffs out the spark of a progressive approach to environmental policy that we hoped we’d see.”

The EPA does not currently regulate carbon dioxide, but the United States has committed to reducing carbon dioxide emissions as part of international efforts to reduce global warming. Excessive amounts of carbon dioxide contribute to a greenhouse effect, which many scientists and world leaders believe causes global warming.

The new policy is an early indication of some of the trade-offs that the Bush administration is willing to make as it crafts a comprehensive strategy to address the country’s energy needs. In this case, an environmental goal took a back seat to the need cited by the administration for more inexpensive energy.

Energy industries were among Bush’s most generous donors, and several industry alumni--from Vice President Dick Cheney to the new deputy Interior secretary--now hold key positions in the administration, wielding great influence over the energy plan.

The timing of the news clearly reflected a desire by the White House to put the president’s new policy on the record before Thursday, when bipartisan bills supporting the regulation of carbon dioxide were expected to be introduced in both the Senate and House. Although the measures were still expected to be introduced, their prospects look dimmer.

The measures provide incentives and set requirements to modernize power plants and reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury and carbon dioxide. Although all fossil-fuel plants emit carbon dioxide, coal-fired plants--which produce about half of the electricity in the country--emit much more carbon dioxide per megawatt and would find it much harder to reduce carbon dioxide emissions than natural gas plants.

Coal Plants Provide Little of State’s Power

Although the president cited California in explaining his decision, the state is much less dependent on coal for power than most of the country. About one-eighth of California’s power comes from coal-fired plants in Utah, Nevada and elsewhere in the Great Basin.

The decision puts Bush’s new EPA chief in an awkward position. Whitman had strenuously defended the president’s commitment to controlling carbon dioxide emissions last month on CNN.

“George Bush was very clear during the course of the campaign that he believed in a multipollutant strategy, and that includes CO2,” Whitman said on CNN’s “Crossfire.”

During a trip to Italy early this month to meet with her counterparts from the world’s seven most industrialized nations and Russia, Whitman said the United States was committed to the goals of the 1997 Kyoto agreement, which called for reducing carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels. But she indicated that the administration was reviewing its strategy on how to get there.

The president’s father, former President George Bush, committed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 to voluntarily stabilize carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by 2000. But the U.S. is currently about 12% over 1990 levels.

Clearly, Tuesday’s development will disappoint America’s partners in the international efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

“It’s pretty clear that Bush is knuckling under to industry pressure,” said Deb Callahan, president of the League of Conservation Voters. “It’s deeply unfortunate that they’ve cut Administrator Whitman off at the knees.”

Whitman’s spokeswoman referred calls to the White House.

Bush specifically stated his commitment to reducing carbon dioxide in a major campaign energy policy speech in Saginaw, Mich., in September. “With the help of Congress, environmental groups and industry, we will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time,” he said.

In the letter to Hagel and through a spokesman, Bush tried to finesse the policy reversal by suggesting that carbon dioxide is not a “pollutant” according to the Clean Air Act.

“It should not have been included in our campaign document,” said White House Spokesman Scott McClellan.

In his letter, Bush stressed that he would work with Congress on a multipollutant strategy to require power plants to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury--but not carbon dioxide.

The letter was sent to Republican Sens. Charles Hagel of Nebraska, Jesse Helms of North Carolina, Pat Roberts of Kansas and Larry E. Craig of Idaho. It referred to a recent Department of Energy report that indicated that capping carbon dioxide emissions would “lead to an even more dramatic shift from coal to natural gas for electric power generation and significantly higher electricity prices.”

Bush said his “administration takes the issue of global climate change very seriously.”

But environmentalists and some members of Congress charged that Bush’s action belies that claim.

“Now, Congress will have to try to make progress on a comprehensive clean air approach without the administration,” Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said, expressing his disappointment over Bush’s broken pledge. “Maybe we’ll need to lean to read the president’s lips more carefully.”

Other members of Congress said they believe they can work with the Bush administration to urge industry to lower carbon dioxide emissions through incentives, such as tax breaks, rather than mandatory regulations.

In an interview Tuesday, Bush offered one example of what the government could do, saying it should “provide money to enhance clean coal technologies.” He was referring to efforts to get government funding to replace aging, dirty coal-burning plants with equipment that burns more efficiently and cleanly.

*

Times staff writer Edwin Chen contributed to this story.