Carpe Diem
After spending years wandering the desert with no one listening to their concerns over global warming, environmentalists are finally enjoying a nationwide audience. Politicians from both sides of the aisle and leaders of some of the largest companies on the planet are coalescing around the need for urgent action. And what do we hear from the long time advocates? Complaints. The victory champagne, it seems, doesn’t taste as sweet because the last cork was popped by none other than the Enemy-in-Chief, George Bush. The signs of this growing resentment were evident in the days leading up to the President’s speech, with a litany of requests from even the most egregious group of bandwagon jumpers, the corporate CEOs, knowing full well the President’s speech was already in the can. Since the speech, the momentum of the criticism has increased by the day, as commentators distanced themselves from the actual substance of the proposals and returned to the comfortable position of attacking the President. Thankfully, the reliably rational Gregg Easterbrook, who consistently doles out criticism to both parties, has taken them all to task. In Slate, Easterbrook writes:
This should have been Page One headline material—PRESIDENT CALLS FOR DRAMATIC MPG REGULATIONS. Instead, most news organizations pretended Bush's mpg proposal did not exist, or buried the story inside the paper, or made only cryptic references to it. In his 2006 State of the Union address, when Bush said America was "addicted to oil" but proposed no mpg improvements, critics rightly pummeled the president. Now Bush has backed the needed reform, and the development is being downplayed or even ridiculed.
Easterbrook contends that the President’s new stance on global warming no longer fits within his previously neat and tidy image as “an environmental villain,” and that recognizing the wisdom of the President’s energy proposals dulls the impact of criticism on other issues, including the war in Iraq. According to Easterbrook, the hypocrisy is most evident when compared to the media’s portrayal of last fall’s ballot initiative in California to reduce fossil fuel use. As Easterbrook points out:
Projections suggest petroleum consumption in California would over a period of years have declined about 25 percent. Suppose Bush's mpg and ethanol proposals go into effect: Projections suggest petroleum consumption in the United States will decline about 20 percent. How come a California plan to cut oil use 25 percent in one state is brilliant, while a White House plan to cut oil use 20 percent across the entire country is insignificant?
Environmental activists have the rest of their lives to take Bush to task for not taking action sooner. If recent reports are true about the White House pressuring government scientists on climate change studies, all the more reason to heap on the criticism. For now, however, the opportunity for action is real. Bush’s proposals represent the most ambitious effort from any administration over the past 30 years to alter our energy consumption. Few members of either house of Congress have ever attempted such sweeping reforms. Given the obstacles faced by Congress in passing meaningful increases in fuel economy standards, including big money auto and oil interests and recalcitrant representatives from Michigan and other states seeking to preserve the status quo, securing the President’s proposed standards would be a momentous victory.
Environmentalists may not want to give the President this feather in his cap, but they should keep in mind that there’s a reason why fuel standards haven’t changed in over 20 years. And before we look to the list of Presidential hopefuls for a savior, we need to remember that they all need to get votes in Michigan. Promises have a way of getting made when an election is on the line. The only person with nothing to lose is Mr. Lame Duck himself. He might even be uniquely positioned to sign a "cap and trade" emissions bill as well. The question is: are his critics sufficiently committed to an immediate solution to swallow their pride and work with the President to make his proposals a reality?