Letter to the Editor: On the climate, measure Bush’s efficacy, not intent

Re: “The problem with the Kyoto Protocol,” (page 5, Dec. 5)

While it may have been unreasonable to expect a column labeled “The Campus Conservative” to provide unbiased insight into the complex issue of global warming, it was unnecessary for Stroll’s article to read like a White House press release (although it wouldn’t have been the first time one had shown up on an op-ed page). It was a mistake for Stroll to focus on the credibility of the Bush administration regarding environmental policy rather than the flaws of the Kyoto Protocol itself.

Although Stroll claims that “President Bush is serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” I find it difficult not to question the environmental motives of a president who, until recently, denied the very existence of global warming. Of course, in the absence of scientific support for its beliefs, the Bush administration had to manipulate and censor Environmental Protection Agency reports, but those aren’t popular reading anyway.

Because he filled his scientific advisory panels with ideologues, religious leaders and corporate-sponsored scientists, who knows if Bush was even aware of his disagreement with the scientific community? The Bush administration stuck to its criticism of global warming theories until it was politically untenable to do so, forfeiting any right to take a moral high ground on the issue in Montreal.

Perhaps there is a reason why 48 Nobel Prize-winning scientists endorsed John Kerry. I would be interested to read a detailed description of Bush’s market-based initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions, but Stroll’s attempt to provide this information presented misleading statistics. For example, although it is true that American greenhouse gas emissions have dropped since 2000, the Financial Times reports that this is mainly due to “a shift in heavy manufacturing away from U.S. shores to cheaper locations such as China.” I’m not sure that the American public would consider outsourcing to be an effective method of environmental protection.

Given this information, a greater context is clearly needed to measure the success of U.S. pollution reduction programs, as well as to establish a comparison with the European Union, Canada and Japan. Although I could not find the specific statistics from the U.S. Newswire that Stroll cited regarding the EU, in an article dated Nov. 29, 2005, the BBC reported that “the 15 longest-standing members of the EU are likely to cut emissions to just 2.5 percent below 1990 levels.” Although this is far below the professed target of an 8 percent decrease, and emissions have risen since 2000 due to increased transportation pollution, such statistics and their underlying explanations paint a far more complex picture of global warming than Stroll was willing to portray.

Likewise, the money Bush has committed to the reduce emissions must be evaluated by its efficacy, not its intent. Ultimately, the Bush administration must back up its position regarding the Kyoto Protocol with its record. It is fine to discuss the economic implications of environmental protection, but it is dishonest to do so while suggesting that the Bush administration has maintained a shred of scientific credibility.

Maggie Francis CAS ’08