A week ago, the president was in Bellevue, Washington, for a fundraiser on behalf of Rep. Dave Reichert (R), one of the House’s most Bush-like members. Environmental policy is one of the leading issues in the area, so the president emphasized how he and guys like Reichert are helping implement an effective strategy.
“I look forward to working with Dave [Reichert] to come up with a practical plan that enables us, one, to grow the economy, and at the same time, to become less dependent on oil and better stewards of the environment. And our strategy makes sense. It’s a common-sense strategy. […]
“[W]e’re spending money to come up with technologies that will enable us to be less dependent on oil. And I think it makes sense. And I’m proud to have Dave’s support. He’s an environmentally conscious guy. He cares about the environment, like a lot of people around the country do. But I want to tell you something that’s interesting, and something you probably haven’t spent much time reading about — do you realize that the United States is the only major industrialized nation that cut greenhouse gases last year?”
Actually, no, I didn’t realize that we’re the only major industrialized nation that cut greenhouse gases last year. Apparently, that’s because that’s not true.
In fact, the WaPo’s Michael Abramowitz spoke to Kristen Hellmer, the spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, who acknowledged after the speech that the White House was “unable to substantiate the claim.”
If only I had a nickel for every time I’d seen that phrase in reference to something Bush has said.
For what it’s worth, Abramowitz set the record straight on the issue. Emissions did drop a little, but a) we’re not the only major industrialized country to see a decline; b) Bush had nothing to do with the progress; and c) the administration’s overall record is still awful.
The Department of Energy estimated in May that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions declined 78 million metric tons, or 1.3 percent, between 2005 and 2006. That represents the first drop in emissions since 2001, when a slowdown in the economy and the Sept. 11 attacks affected the numbers.
How much the Bush administration influenced this is another question. The Energy Information Administration offered two major explanations for the decline: The first, a cooler summer and a warmer winter, had nothing to do with Bush. The other explanation was that cleaner power sources such as natural gas and non-fossil fuels are coming online in the electrical industry — another area where Bush’s pull seems at best minimal.
The administration insists it is making a contribution. “Progress is due in part to natural causes, innovation and market forces, and emerging federal, state and local policies,” Hellmer said.
Environmentalists are decidedly less impressed, pointing out that carbon dioxide emissions are up during the whole of the Bush presidency. “It’s the equivalent of someone saying that he lost three pounds after gaining 25 pounds,” said Daniel J. Weiss, the director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress.
Why Bush chose to brag about this is a mystery. Perhaps it’s because he wanted to say something positive about his environmental policies and couldn’t think of any thing else.