You Are In: USINFO > Products > Webchats > connaughton_23_oct_2006

Official Discusses Bush Administration's Environmental Policy

USINFO Webchat transcript October 23

Jim Connaughton, chairman of the White House council on environmental quality, answered questions in an October 23 USINFO webchat on U.S. environmental policy.

Following is the transcript:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of International Information Programs
USINFO Webchat Transcript

U.S. Environmental Policy with Jim Connaughton, Council on Environment Quality

Guest:     Jim Connaughton
Date:      October 23, 2006
Time:      06:00 a.m. EDT (1000 GMT)

IIP Moderator: We would like to welcome Mr. Jim Connaughton from Washington, DC. He is President Bush's chief environmental policy officer.

Jim Connaughton: Good afternoon everybody. I am delighted to be here in Frankfurt, Germany for today's discussion. I will be traveling to Helsinki tonight to attend the US-EU High Level Dialogue on Clean Development and Climate, which will involve many of the subjects of interest to all of you. I look forward to your questions.

IIP Moderator: Information on U.S. positions on a number of environmental issues can be found at http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/global_issues/environment.html.

Question: What is the administration's view on alternative energy?

Answer [Jim Connaughton]: President Bush and his administration strongly support alternative energy sources and technologies. As part of his National Energy Plan and Comprehensive Climate Strategy announced back in 2001 and 2002, President Bush backed significant new tax incentives and other federal and state programs to promote the use of renewable energy technologies. Comprehensive energy legislation signed by the President last year adopted a number of these policies including more than 10 billion dollars in clean energy tax credits, which included renewable solar, wind, and geothermal power production, and production of ethanol and biodiesel. The bill also included a new mandate requiring the use of 7.5 billion gallons of renewable ethanol and biodiesel. A huge amount of private sector investment is now going to renewable fuels. The U.S. is now producing more than 4 billion gallons toward this goal. While Germany has long been a world leader in wind production, I recently learned that the U.S. installed the more wind power than any other country last year, with the President's home state of Texas being among the leaders as a result of legislation that he signed when he was governor. And, in his State of the Union Address earlier this year, President Bush launched the Advanced Energy Initiative which aims to commercialize "cellulosic ethanol," an advanced bio-fuel that can be made from a broad variety of crops, grasses, and plant waste. Our Department of Energy will soon announce the winners for government backed construction of the first commercial scale demonstrations of the bio-refineries to produce this fuel in the U.S. The initiative also included substantial new funding the develop the next generation of solar power technology. These are very exciting times for renewable energy!

Q: President Bush refused to join the Kyoto Protocol due to expected damages to U.S. business. But now, U.S. companies notice the importance of environmentally sound activities and act accordingly making remarkable moves. Obviously, big business is willing to engage. Does this have an impact on federal policy and what is it like? Is there even thought to join the Kyoto Protocol after all?

A: Government and business leaders in the United States are strongly committed to taking sensible action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This will occur through increased investment in the best of today's technologies and new technologies that are more efficient. President Bush has committed the nation to improving the greenhouse gas intensity of our economy (emissions per unit of GDP) by 18 percent by 2012. This goal will offset about 500 million metric tons of carbon equivalent emissions -- about the same amount that the countries with targets under the Kyoto Protocol are projected to achieve if they meet their targets. Fifteen of our major sectors have established public private partnerships with the federal government to improve their efficiency and greenhouse gas profile -- with specific targets relevant to each sector. The most successful and remarkable strategies are those that reduce emissions at a substantial profit. Companies are saving money by redesigning processes and investing in more efficient technologies, which lowers the greenhouse gases associated with their energy use. You hear stories about that every day now. In the United States, many companies are now profitably capturing methane from coal mines, landfills and large agricultural operations and converting it to clean burning energy, instead of releasing it to the atmosphere. Methane is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Our government policies are focused on expanding such opportunity for profitable investment, for example, by removing regulatory barriers and reducing taxes on such investments.

The Kyoto Protocol, while well intentioned, created a huge problem for the U.S. because the target assigned to the U.S. was impractical and essentially impossible to achieve. It would have dramatically increased our cost of energy and driven major energy intensive overseas to other countries that did not have obligations under the Protocol. In addition to the economic cost and the potential loss of millions of jobs overseas, it is just as important to point out that the emission associated with those jobs simply would have moved from the United States to another, likely less efficient producer in another country -- putting the same or greater emissions into the atmosphere. That is why most officials from both of our major political parties objected to the Kyoto Protocol. Certainly we can all agree on avoiding such an unintended consequence.

But we still are dedicated to action. I am pleased to note that from 2000-2004 U.S. significantly slowed the growth in its emissions, which increased 1.3 percent while our economy grew by more than 9 percent. During the same period, emissions in the EU-15 grew by 2.4 percent, though also with a higher rate of economic growth. A few countries such as the U.K. and Germany slightly reduced their emissions, while many more had increases in emissions. We are making about the same rate of progress, which is a good outcome that deserves closer attention.

IIP Moderator: About 3 million years ago the Alps were likely 100-200 kilometers wider and 300-1520 meters higher than they are today, before they were diminished by a massive erosion event.

Read all about the latest collaborative findings from an Italian, Swiss and U.S. research team. (See related article.)

Q [Ben]: Besides Kyoto, what are the biggest differences between the U.S. and European environmental policies?

A: Actually Ben, what is remarkable is the significant common ground the U.S. enjoys with European environmental policies. Our popular cultures tend to pay more attention and significant amount of time to differences whether real or perceived. In America, we call this the "good news bad, bad news good" effect. We are working very closely with European policymakers on long-term technology opportunities such as fusion power, the next generation of nuclear power, and zero-emission hydrogen energy systems. Nearer term, we are advancing strategies on renewable energy systems, renewable fuels, efficiency of buildings and appliances, vehicle fuel efficiency, relieving congestion in our cities, and promoting sustainable practices in major sectors such as forestry and agriculture. The U.S. has recently initiated massive new programs to cut harmful air pollution from coal-fired power plants by nearly 70 percent at a cost of about 50 billion dollars, as well as new requirements cutting pollution from diesel fuel and engines by more than 90 percent. Our European counterparts are pursuing similar strategies. I and my colleagues in Europe spend most of our time on these advances.

Q: After Hurricane Katrina, the U.S. public interest in environment and climate change has increased a lot. What kind of pressure does this put on the government?

A: 1. Hurricane Katrina was a devastating natural disaster that affected the lives of many of our citizens and destroyed many communities that have grown up along our coastline along the Gulf of Mexico, and which mobilized the enormous generosity of Americans and people from around the world to help with response and rebuilding. We have made great progress, but rebuilding will still take time. Hurricane Katrina focused public awareness on the need to build coastal communities that are more resilient to major weather events and to be better prepared for evacuation and response when they occur. Some parts of the Gulf Coast hit by Hurricane Katrina were more vulnerable to its effects due to historic loss of coastal wetlands, which otherwise provide a natural buffer to storm surge produced by a hurricane. So one important lesson as the region rebuilds, is to make sure we do so in manner that is in greater harmony with natural conditions. With respect to climate change, some of our scientists have advised caution in linking particular weather events such as Hurricane Katrina to long-term projections of global warming. Some scientists relate Hurricane Katrina to a periodic weather cycle that has been occurring every few decades for a very long time, well prior to the rise in human produced greenhouse gases. Others have suggested that Hurricane Katrina was stronger because of gradually warming surface temperatures. President Bush's Administration has already spent about 10 billion dollars on climate change scientific research, which includes research exploring the extent to which long-term climate change may affect hurricane intensity and impacts. Earlier this year, our weather service had predicted an even stronger hurricane season, yet that has not happened with only a few weeks remaining. Regardless of natural causes or human contribution, we will continue to support research and implement actions that help us protect our communities and properly respond to such natural events.

Q: Could you please share your view on the future of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Is it still under scrutiny for the oil reserves that are buried in the ground underneath?

A: Reducing U.S. dependence on foreign sources of energy is important not only for the U.S., but also for world economies. President Bush is committed to a number of measures. First and foremost is greater efficiency and conservation, where significant gains are still possible. As indicated in prior answers, we are also dedicated to diversifying our fuels to include the full range of renewable fuels. But we also need to take advantage of our own domestic sources of energy, including oil and natural gas. That is why the President and his Administration remain strongly committed to environmentally responsible in a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that was reserved explicitly for that purpose when the refuge was created. I have travelled to the refuge at the height of the summer and in the bleak cold of the long winter night. It is truly a spectacular natural resource. I also saw the most modern production methods which are very different than the popular mythology that surrounds this issue. With new technologies, we can access the resource with very limited impact on the land and wildlife. With one hole in the ground and new "directional drills", energy companies can go miles down and miles in all directions without disturbing the surface. And the U.S. has the strictest laws to prevent and respond to any impacts while production is occurring. And when production is complete, everything has to be pulled out. Finally, the area under consideration amounts to about 2000 acres (the size of a small airport) out of the 19 million of acres that comprises the refuge, and the area is located close to where development is already occurring on state lands. In my view, this area is in one of the places that can provide more oil and gas with the lowest environmental consequence, under the strictest laws. If we have to use oil to drive our kids to school and get to work, which we do, my strong preference it to produce it at home and do it right.

Q [Tim]: What do you hope to achieve at the U.S.-EU dialogue this week?

A: In Helsinki, I'm looking forward to exploring the possibility of developing practical work programs with the European Union that can produce measurable results in improving energy security, cutting harmful air pollution and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Our agenda for the meeting covers a wide range of issues, including renewables, clean coal and carbon capture and storage, and market mechanisms. Unlike previous senior-level climate discussions between the U.S. and the EU, this dialogue includes senior energy and industry government officials. The Finnish Industry Minister, for example, is co-chairing the discussions with his colleague in the Environment Minister. Structuring our dialogue in this fashion -- bringing in the key officials who are directly responsible for policy implementation -- provides many opportunities for both sides of the Atlantic to make real progress in tackling the challenge of cleaner development and climate strategies by harnessing the power and resources of strong economic growth.

Q: To date, environmental policy is regulated primarily at the state level. With California in the lead, more states and even regional initiatives like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative have come up with impressive measures? Could you please outline your view of these initiatives and do they offer an example that could be applied to federal policy too?

A: President Bush stated early in his administration that progress on climate changes requires action at the federal, state, and local level, and by all sectors of our economy. We therefore welcome sensible strategies developed and implemented at the state level. Most of these you will not hear about because they with topics such as building codes and standards, consumer incentives for efficiency, renewable energy portfolio requirements, transportation congestion mitigation, sustainable forestry techniques, etc. The programs you refer to have received more attention because they have generated more political debate and controversy. While both programs have been announced, neither has been implemented yet. The new California plan will take several years to design and implement. At this point, there is no way to judge the extent to which the programs will be successful -- just as the EU is evaluating its own experience with the Emissions Trading Scheme. We will have to wait and see.

In the meantime, we will also aggressively pursue the many federal government strategies I described for you, which actually provide a lot of support for success at the state level. In this way, we are all working together.

IIP Moderator: We would like to thank Mr. Connaughton and everyone who participated in our chat today.  The webchat is now closed.

[A transcript of today's Webchat will be available on our USINFO Webchat Station within one business day.]

[Guests are chosen for their expertise. The views expressed by the guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of State.]