Bush stays course on environment

By Jill McGivering BBC News, Washington

President Bush supports a voluntary, 'market-based' approach to the environment

Concerns about global warming at the convention on climate change in Buenos Aires could increase international pressure on the United States.

In President George W Bush's first term, he refused to sign up to the landmark Kyoto agreement and stayed sceptical about key scientific data about climate change and its consequences.

Green groups have criticised President Bush over his environmental record, but in the recent presidential election campaign, the issue barely registered.

And there is little likelihood the second Bush term will bring any change in thinking or policy.

Fossil-fuel dependence

Many Americans agreed with President Bush three years ago when he refused to sign the Kyoto agreement and said the US was not the main culprit:

All these scare stories that we're going to have these terrible consequences, that's where the scientific case is weakest Myron Ebell, Competitive Enterprise Institute

"We account for almost 20% of the world's man-made greenhouse gas emissions. We also account for about one quarter of the world's economic output," President Bush said.

And he added: "We recognise our responsibility to reduce our emissions. We also recognise the other part of the story, that the rest of the world emits 80% of all greenhouse gases."

You only have to step outside to see America is still a nation of consumers.

Big cars are seen as necessities. Many are gas guzzlers. The economy is still firmly based on fossil fuels.

Selective science

And so far there's little sign of the Bush administration wanting to change that.

"It's very difficult to have a debate that's grounded in reason and facts. You have an administration that is really emotionally attached to the fossil fuels industry," said Eric Schaeffer, director of non-government group, the Environmental Integrity Project.

He accuses the administration of picking and choosing scientific data to match its own pro-fossil fuel agenda.

That explains, he says, why conclusions on climate change that are now accepted in many other countries are still disputed here.

"Because they're so ideologically committed to the coal and oil industry, they're more sceptical of the science," Mr Schaefer said.

"If you think about global climate, you can always find a scientist who can say the fears are exaggerated, the concerns are exaggerated. For a politician worrying about the next election, the consequences seem remote," he added.

Challenging global warming

One scientist who does say fears of climate change are exaggerated is Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Like the president, he is staunchly opposed to the Kyoto agreement, calling it unrealistic and unworkable.

"I don't think putting the world on an energy diet will ever work. I think it's a dead end and a huge waste of resources," Mr Ebell said.

And, he argues, climate change isn't all bad.

"All these scare stories that we're going to have these terrible consequences, that's where the scientific case is weakest, that's what continually makes newspaper headlines," he said.

Free market approach

Protests and demands for tougher action will go on but may not be heard.

Brendan Bell of the environmental group, Sierra Club, says the long-term impact of current policies will be damaging. Both for the global environment - and, ironically, for American competitiveness:

"My concern for the future is that the United States falls so far behind the rest of the world that we have to play catch-up," Mr Bell said.

Protecting the environment is also about investing in technology, and he said the US is lagging behind in investing in renewable energy and cleaner cars.

"Those are technologies that are going to make America competitive over the next years and if we don't act now, we will lose out," he added.

The Bush administration's policy has been called the free market approach - more voluntary action than imposed rules.

But so far there's little sense of the American public rushing to change behaviour. And the powerful fossil fuel industry even less so.