---

March 14, 2001

Bush, in Reversal, Won't Seek Cut in Emissions of Carbon Dioxide

The decision left environmental groups and some Congressional Democrats angered at what they called a major betrayal. But the White House said a cabinet-level review had concluded that Mr. Bush's original promise had been a mistake inconsistent with the broader goal of increasing domestic energy production.

The president outlined his new view in a letter to four Republican senators, whose criticisms of Mr. Bush's initial plan had been among a torrent of protests by conservatives and industry leaders who warned that any effort to regulate carbon dioxide emissions could deal a severe blow to the energy industry and to the American economy.

As recently as 10 days ago, Christie Whitman, the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, had described Mr. Bush's campaign promise as if it were already policy. 

Administration officials would not say directly today whether Ms. Whitman had supported the change in position but suggested that she had not. They said the views of Vice President Dick Cheney and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham had been most instrumental in the final decision.

A spokeswoman for Ms. Whitman, Tina Kreisher, said the E.P.A. chief would "follow the president's lead."

The burden of any plan to regulate carbon dioxide emissions would have fallen most heavily on coal-burning power plants, which still account for more than 50 percent of the electricity generated in the United States. Mr. Bush said today that a recent Energy Department study had concluded that regulating carbon dioxide emissions would have led to "significantly higher electricity prices."

"This is important new information that warrants a re-evaluation, especially at a time of rising energy prices and a serious energy shortage," Mr. Bush said.

"At a time when California has already experienced energy shortages, and other Western states are worried about price and availability of energy this summer, we must be very careful not to take actions that could harm consumers," Mr. Bush said in the letter. "This is especially true given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change and the lack of commercially available technologies for removing and storing carbon dioxide."

Mr. Bush said he remained committed to an energy policy that would seek to improve air quality by reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury, which are already regulated as pollutants. But he said he no longer supported the position outlined in a campaign statement of Sept. 29, which had also promised to set "mandatory reduction targets" for carbon dioxide.

Some moderate Republicans who had been preparing to introduce legislation later this week supporting a power plant cleanup including carbon dioxide also expressed frustration with the sudden shift. They and some owners of coal-fired plants had supported the idea of regulating all four emissions from power plants at once, to avoid uncertainty and confusion in years to come.

The pressure to make the decision came in part from lobbyists for coal companies and utilities dependent on coal and from the conservative wing of the Republican Party, which saw any move to regulate carbon dioxide as an implicit endorsement of the goals of the Kyoto Protocol.

This treaty, negotiated and signed by the Clinton administration but as yet unratified, would commit 38 industrialized countries to sharp ongoing cuts in carbon dioxide emissions.

Many senators, particularly Jesse Helms, Republican of North Carolina, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, oppose it as a a potential harm to the economy and because it would allow American energy policy, in essence, to be governed by an international treaty. The letter was sent to Mr. Helms, Mr. Hagel, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas and Senator Larry E. Craig of Idaho.

Mr. Bush's earlier embrace of the plan had won him praise from environmental leaders, who described the approach as an indication that the administration might be more sympathetic than they had expected.

The representatives of environmental organizations denounced Mr. Bush's turnabout.

"Bush is turning his back not only on his campaign pledge, but on his administrator of the E.P.A. and the world's scientists, who warn this problem is more serious than we previously thought," said Daniel A. Lashof, a senior scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

In the offices of industry lobbyists and conservative Republican congressmen, on the other hand, there was a strong sense of triumph.

Glenn Kelly, the executive director of the Global Climate Coalition, which represents industry groups, said the White House had received "a lot of communications" from those critical of any attempt to regulate emissions that are viewed as contributing to global warming. "Fortunately, the president responded quickly," Mr. Kelly said.

Mr. Bush's earlier position had been more far-reaching even than that of his campaign opponent, former Vice President Al Gore, who had called for strong incentives to encourage voluntary moves by industry to reduce emissions.

The letter from Mr. Bush came in response to a letter sent last week by Senator Hagel, requesting that Mr. Bush clarify his stance.

Mr. Hagel has repeatedly said in recent months that he believes global warming is at least partly caused by emissions of gases from human activities, but he has opposed both the Kyoto Protocol and legislative moves to limit carbon dioxide emissions. Tonight, Mr. Hagel said he welcomed Mr. Bush's response. 

A number of members of Congress, including Senators James M. Jeffords, Republican of Vermont, and Joseph I. Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, are preparing various power plant bills that would have included carbon dioxide among regulated emissions. Tonight staff for the bill sponsors said identical bills would still be introduced in the Senate and House on Thursday, but they conceded that there was little hope, at least for now, that such measures could succeed.

Many people involved on both sides of the fight said the decision by Mr. Bush represented a sharp rebuke of Ms. Whitman, the former New Jersey governor.

Among others in the administration who had been seen as supporting restrictions on carbon dioxide was the Treasury secretary, Paul H. O'Neill, who in his previous post as chairman of Alcoa had said in a 1998 speech that the problem of global warming was on par with a potential nuclear holocaust in terms of demanding government action.
Ms. Kreisher, Ms. Whitman's spokeswoman, said: "The administrator has said in the past that President Bush regards climate change very seriously and supports a comprehensive, balanced energy policy that is intended to improve air quality, and the administrator is gratified that he supports that."

A senior E.P.A. official who spoke on condition of anonymity, however, left little doubt that the turnabout had left Ms. Whitman exposed. "If you look at her past statements, she said she was supporting what was in the president's campaign plan," the official said. "It's his prerogative to decide if he wants to change that, and she will follow his lead."

A White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said Mr. Bush had made his decision in consultation with his cabinet. 

"The president is following through on his commitment to a multipollutant strategy that will significantly reduce pollutants," Mr. McClellan said. "CO2 should not have been included as a pollutant during the campaign. It was a mistake."