Beware of People With Agendas

Last week a major world leader outlined a series of policy steps to stop the increase in the emissions of greenhouse gases in his country and then to reduce those emissions.  He suggested a timetable for doing so, and proposed the adoption of incentives, subsidies and requirements to increase renewable fuels, implement greater energy efficiency, generate more renewable electricity, develop carbon-free energy from coal, and foster nuclear power development.  One would think that his policy proposals would be the subject of serious consideration and substantive discussion, if not outright agreement in some quarters.  But, for the most part, the reaction has consisted of scoffing, derision and dismissal.  The problem, of course, is that the world leader in question was George W. Bush, and the messenger very much got in the way of the message he delivered in his speech in the Rose Garden on Wednesday, April 16, 2008.  The reactions to the President’s remarks say more about the state of climate change policy than does the speech itself and provide an instructive glimpse into the multi-layered agendas of the stakeholders in the climate change policy arena.

Judging from the reaction of Democrats, environmental groups and even other countries, one would have thought that the President was suggesting a “business-as-usual” course, with increased energy use and higher emissions of greenhouse gases without regard to the consequences.  The refusal to give credence to his substantive policy initiatives, many of which are essential elements of climate change policies already being implemented by local, state and national governments, appears to be principally the result of a number of aspects of the President’s speech.  First, with a maddening consistency, the President insisted that the best approach to climate change is technological.  Conspicuous by its absence was any hint of support for a mandatory reduction program.  Also, he had the temerity to suggest that climate change is not only an environmental issue, but also has significant economic and national security implications, and that any national approach to climate change needs to take into account impacts on the country’s economic health and its ability to protect its citizenry.

The speech also suffered from a severe defect in timing.  No one expects the Administration to achieve any significant policy changes in the waning months of the Bush presidency.  Therefore, the political pundits saw the speech more as the President’s attempt to somehow influence the climate change debate in Congress, currently centered around the Lieberman-Warner bill, than to initiate a serious policy initiative.

More than anything else, however, the reaction to the President’s speech revealed the mixed motives of the climate change players.  Climate change is a global issue that presents extraordinary challenges for those who are seriously attempting to figure how to deal with it and tempting opportunities for those who seek funding for their cause.  Academics have found a readiness in certain quarters to provide grants for climate change-related research (there are probably more researchers in the Arctic at any given time than native peoples).  NGOs can now tap into foundations and individual bank accounts (there’s even an Academy Award in the mix).  Politicians can ride a populist wave of enthusiasm for beating up on Big Oil and Big Coal (after all, the gasoline in our cars and the electricity in our houses just magically appear).  Who, though, is going to provide the leadership and take the heat for a renewables project in someone’s backyard (Nantucket Islanders v. wind energy) or a carbon tax on gasoline to incentivize smaller cars and alternative fuels or a massive transfer of wealth to the developing world to alleviate poverty, population and massive deforestation? 

The climate change policy world is complicated enough without having to peel back the agendas of the major players.  But, unless we do, we are going to devote a lot of time, energy and money to solutions that do not have a problem.

(This post was contributed courtesy of Jim Holtkamp, Holland & Hart's Global Climate Change Practice Group leader.)