US energy plans: What are the implications?

US President George W Bush has outlined his own plan to combat global warming as an alternative to the Kyoto treaty he rejected last year.

He said his priorities were to clean the air and reduce power plant emissions, especially of the three worst air pollutants - sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury.

Companies will be assigned permits for each tonne of pollution and will be permitted to trade them so that the US government's targets will be met.

Critics of the deal say it is ineffectual and panders to Mr Bush's business supporters.

They say it does little to curb fossil fuel emissions such as oil and coal, which environmentalists say cause more problems and contribute to global warming and acid rain.

What are the implications? Are the measures going to be effective?

---

This Talking Point has now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

I sincerely hope that 100 years from now, people will appreciate the way in which we dealt with the challenges that faced us.

Naveed Bhatti, Wales

Whether environmental change exists or not is irrelevant. Every person on this planet has a responsibility to future and present generations to make as little impact as is necessary on our Earth. This should be borne out of a respect for all life, for every natural resource is not solely our birthright but belongs to the children of the future. We must realise that these issues do not affect us on a national or global level but prevail in each one of our day to day lives. The onus is therefore on the individual to change their lifestyle and encourage others, by recycling more rubbish, consuming less energy and water, and using more local foods and resources. I sincerely hope that 100 years from now, people will appreciate the way in which we dealt with the challenges that faced us.
Naveed Bhatti, Wales, U.K.

I lived in Europe for a substantial amount of time, and I was shocked at the poor air quality there. I currently live in a valley that used to have some of the worst air in the U.S. We now have local laws that enforce clean emissions standards, and last year my city's air was rated as the best in the nation for a city our size. Why do Europeans seem to believe they must wait for everyone else before they can act to solve problems? I realize your countries are smaller and more easily affected by the actions of others, but, good grief, stop talking and DO something already!
Deb, USA

I'm a car lover, a "green movement" sceptic, and a sever doubter of the theory of global warming. However, I object profusely to the American government's attitude that the unsustainable consumption of Earth's invaluable, and terrifyingly finite fossil fuel resource is somehow not their problem.

Whether you believe in the Kyoto protocol or not (and many respected climatologists do not), a serious and inescapable problem exists in that fossil fuels are going to be gone in the next 50-100 years. And if we don't use them wisely, the human race as a technologically advanced race will disappear with them.

Much as I hate to admit it, the global warming lobby, and people like myself want to see pretty much the same thing happen. Subtle lifestyle changes, a move away from oil dependence, and most importantly of all, a doubling of effort to find suitable alternatives. The fact that America only selectively acknowledges this issue that we face, if at all, is a disgrace to its people.

Bush's idiotic response to the problem is what I would expect from a populist career politician leading a country, which by 21st century standards is still shamefully insular.
Dan, UK

We know what he stands for

Tom McMannis, USA

George Bush has taken a wrong turn on the environment. The Democrats and Al Gore said that he would do it. Now, it looks as though they were 100% right about that. How can he do this? I don't think anybody really has to ask that question anymore. We know what he stands for.
Tom McMannis, USA

The US produces 26 percent of the world's goods and 25 percent of the pollution. There are many countries with much worse ratios, even in Europe.
Joe, USA

Let me assure the audience that not all Americans are reactionary and selfish. I, for one, fail to understand how our economy will benefit when our coastal cities are under water!!! It's time we opened our eyes and erred on the side of caution. Bush is out of touch with reality.
Matthew, USA

I think that President Bush is right in having his own way of reducing pollution rather than accepting the Kyoto agreement. It is about time that someone stood up to the environmental pressure groups. The fact that the environmentalists bring up 'acid rain' as an argument for reducing pollution just shows how desperate their argument is. Acid rain is a myth!
Scott, UK

What a sad country we have where carcinogenic lungs are less important than a fat wallet

J Gonzalez, Texas, USA

As a Texas native, I have insight to this pathetic big-business-blessed energy policy that Bush is trying to substitute for the Kyoto Protocol. When he was Governor of Texas (green-wilting years that I don't want to remember), he introduced a similar program where heavy-polluting industries could "volunteer" to reduce emissions. What a beautiful flop that was, especially since many businesses could claim a "grandfathering" clause which allowed them to sidestep any of that program. Thanks to the success of Bush's program, Houston is now the most polluted city in the USA. I find it disgusting that the Republicans have the ingrained idea that only polluting industries are good for business and all green initiatives are bad for business. What a sad country we have where carcinogenic lungs are less important than a fat wallet.
J Gonzalez, Texas, USA

George W is going in the right direction. Why are the environmentalists so full of hate? It seems like whatever is being done is not enough for them. It seems like they would not stop until companies are destroyed but aren't the companies the institutions that hire people and how would we pay for cleaning the environment without the money from the corporations? I don't know anyone around me that doesn't like clean air and a clean environment but I sure do know a lot of people that would not join the radical views of the extreme environmentalists.
Nick C, USA

It is down to the rest of the world to clean up their act

Christopher Laird, Tokyo, Japan

Honestly speaking, I have been nervous of the Bush administration from day one (I just can't feel confident about him). His rejection of the Kyoto treaty on commercial grounds really hit hard as a message that business was more important than the environment. That said, I'm half pleased that at least he has introduced something to begin to address the issue. It isn't nearly enough, but is more than some other countries are planning. It is down to the rest of the world to clean up their act and take the lead. If any country doesn't follow suit (including the US), then be liable for duties on exported goods to cover the cost incurred in those countries that are trying to achieve a balanced environment.
Christopher Laird, Tokyo, Japan

Bush highlights once again that the only thing America really worries about is making money. This at the expense not only of the rest of humanity but the planet too.
Richard, South Africa

To Richard, South Africa: Please explain to me why it's America's fault that South Africa is failing as a country.
Franco, Virginia, USA

Enron used to have a division that sold "Green Credits" to polluters so they could "meet" legal standards. Why does Bush's plan strike such a familiar note?
J Ward, US

J Ward hit the proverbial nail on the head. How could a president of the United States make such a preposterous proposal when currently breaking news strongly indicates that the leading US energy broker has been cooking the books. The mind boggles at the paper profits that Enron could have made had George W's green tax credits been enacted into law. As J Ward implies, there may have been a strong input from Enron in George W's proposal.
John Berge, Lindesberg, Sweden

Since he's taken office I've joined two more environmental organisations

Peter Nelson, USA

President Bush may be bad for the environment but he's great for the environmental movement. Since he's taken office I've joined two more environmental organisations and greatly increased my financial contributions to several others.
Peter Nelson, USA

I recently read an article that compared the personal usage of fossil fuels amongst developed and developing countries' peoples. The study states that people on average in the developed countries use 50 times as much fossil fuel as compared to those in the developing world. Isn't it easier to make small but effective cuts on lifestyle at the individual level than to wait for the government to do it?
Dr Sharad Kumar, Birmingham, UK

I can't stand Bush but I do worry about the mudslinging that is going on between the US and the rest of the world. Reading these boards I always come across messages from Americans like 'they're out to get us!' And this makes the Americans EVEN MORE insular and reluctant to engage with the rest of the world. We need to work together to solve these issues and not isolate the US any more. Time to flatter, cajole and help them see that their policies affect the rest of the world. It's a simple concept which I hope the US will grasp eventually.
Elena Yeo, Singapore

Kyoto was neither fair nor enforceable

Bill Douglass, Chicago, USA

The implications are that the old Kyoto deal was never going to be accepted by the American people. Kyoto put unfair restrictions on American companies while China, the worlds biggest polluter, had no restrictions. There is no comparison between pollution in the United States and the way Mexico ravages the environment. Many American companies have transplanted into Mexico just to avoid American EPA regulations. The deal must be fair for all nations and be enforceable or there is no deal. Kyoto was neither fair nor enforceable. Most Americans correctly view Kyoto as yet another attempt by Europe's liberal elite to bash America.
Bill Douglass, Chicago, USA

Apparently Peter Kohler thinks that wanting to pass on a clean and viable planet to our children amounts to US-hating. What an arrogant attitude! Bush's plan amounts to a small but over-powerful proportion of the Earth's population imposing their will on the majority. We have to stick together to stop this madness. No asphyxiation without representation!
Chazza, Scotland

Even if Bush wanted to follow the Kyoto Treaty (and that is a gargantuan IF) the US Senate voted 95-0 against it. So, it's not just the Toxic Texan who is at fault (though his plans to rape the Alaskan wilderness for a bit of oil are hardly the actions of someone overtly concerned with the environment) but the US political establishment as a whole. At least now Bush is talking about global warming whereas before he appeared to be unsure that it even exists. One thing that would give Europe more clout on the matter is if it actually ratified the Kyoto Treaty!
Neil Halliday, UK

The Kyoto Treaty is like the Tax on Tea. Europe is trying to govern the American people without our consent. We fought the American revolution over this issue and we like the results. Americans elect Congress. Congress approves treaties. It does not approve treaties the American people do not want. The fact that the EU thinks it can bypass the political agreement of 280 million people is a frightening forecast of the kind of self-government it is likely to allow its own citizens.
Ann, USA

President Bush reduces greenhouse gas emissions, Oh really, are they going to stop smashing up other peoples forests and grow their own trees too? No. "Its too expensive to grow trees in America" making paper out of other peoples trees is how they make so much money and destroy any potential competition.
Brian Jones, England

If I were a betting man I would place a very large sum of money on the probability that global warming will be a none event insofar as it will not cause even a fraction of the problems predicted by the doom merchants. Climate is cyclic, as any analysis of history will confirm, and that the world should destroy its industry to comply with the demands of these lame brained activists who would prefer that all humanity lived in caves and ate grass is ludicrous. It is preferable that money is spent achieving a better, and more complete, understanding of the world's climate, than that all react to the threats and campaigning of the Green activists who justify their demands on their analysis of initial and incomplete research.
John Brownlee, England

At least Bush is willing to think about the issue for a few seconds

Shelly, USA

Of course, it isn't enough. Of course, it's too pro-business. But it's a start. At least Bush is willing to think about the issue for a few seconds, which is more than he was willing to do before. So, I hope that instead of anti-Bush and anti-American rants; let's look at it as an olive branch to restart talks. The US Senate NEVER ratified the treaty, so the US was never in Kyoto in the first place. If we can't come up with something the US Senate will sign, Bush and his POV are irrelevant just as Clinton and his administration's work were also irrelevant. The US Senate didn't sign Kyoto...and I don't think they'll sign the Bush proposal either. One was too harsh on US interests, the other too lenient.
Shelly, USA

Little can be said about the effectiveness of such a proposal at the moment. However, I have always believed that the key to reducing pollution is make industries realise that it is to their advantage to reduce pollution and Bush's imitative is a step in the right direction.
Robert, Canada

I definitely do not agree US government's decision to not to follow Kyoto treaty. People of USA must must understand that they are one of the biggest polluters on the planet and therefore it is their responsibility to follow the Kyoto treaty. I hope Mr Bush realizes this.
Anish, USA

I'm definitely a right-winger by European standards, but even I have to take notice about our deteriorating energy situation. Although many dismiss nuclear power, for the US it should be a short-term waypoint until more development has been accomplished on the renewable front. I am all for spending the misguided anti-ballistic missile funds on energy research and development, as from tactical point of view energy is our Achilles heel. Battery research for vehicles should be at the forefront as well. What worries me is that with Bush I can see rather idiotic situations cropping up such as using shale oil.
Victor, USA

Mr Bush is only concerned with delivering corporate friendly policies to his political contributors

Jeff Evans, USA

Mr Bush is only concerned with delivering corporate friendly policies to his political contributors. He cares nothing for the environment. The proposals he is currently setting forth are simply a feeble attempt to green wash the issue while conducting business as usual, an endeavour in which his corporate benefactors are experts. As long as he and the republicans are in power, we will continue to breath contaminated air, drink contaminated water and eat food products grown in contaminated soils.
Jeff Evans, USA

The implications? Simple. The massive CO2 emissions from the US continue to rise, the climate keeps changing, we get worse floods, hurricanes etc, small island states disappear under the waves, huge numbers of people are displaced by floods, droughts or crop failures, and so on. Hopefully some of these countries will then sue the US for the damage Bush is aiming to cause.
Martyn, UK

It wouldn't surprise me to find out soon that these new measures/polices were drafted by big polluters and handed to Bush to announce it. Rejecting Kyoto treaty proved that backing big corporate are his highest priority no matter what the cost is.
MM, US

At least give the man credit for trying

Alex, UK

At least give the man credit for trying. Even though the proposals don't deal with carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, or with fossil fuels, at least Bush has made a step in the right direction by putting his head over the parapet and agreeing to clean up sulphur dioxide and NOx, which are both significant contributors to acid rain. Hopefully if this works, he should then be more easily persuaded to take on the large energy companies and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Alex, UK

The President's plan will impose voluntary emission thresholds and we all know how eager large polluters are to reduce. It appears he wants to silence his critics by presenting a plan that he can turn around and blame the industry for not complying with. Toothless regulations; I question his sincerity.
Terry Moore, USA

The implications are the same as ever. Big business wins, the environment loses. Bush and the republicans continue to receive millions of dollars from the most damaging industries, for putting forward such a poor set of proposals. Overall the measures are nothing short of appalling and the lobby groups and big business will think that it's been money well spent.
Dan Stewart, US

It's a pragmatic, measured, appropriate - classic GW.
A George, USA

Firstly, a majority in the United States Senate, democrats and republicans, rejected the Kyoto Treaty, not just Bush. Second, other than reverting to a pre-industrial agrarian state (but this time no slaves of course!) NOTHING the US or Bush proposes will satisfy the chain-smoking, cafe-sitting and US-bashing Euro cognoscenti who, of course, know best for all of us. Oh, is this the week's officially dominated "I Hate America" topic or do we get choices?
Peter C. Kohler, USA

It is shameful and ironic to be to be a citizen of country of such a great scientific technological power that choses to selectively ignore its own scientific research on the topic of global climate change.
Aaron Hoppe, USA

The implications are simple. Nothing but clean air and a strong economy.
Casey, NYC, USA