Une intervention de Yves Regez,
19 mars 2001
[Posté
dans agora@cyberhumanisme.org]
"Apres Bush, le deluge". Tel est le titre de l'article
de 24 heures (journal suisse romand) du 15.3.01 sur son viol de
promesse electorale concernant la reduction des emissions de CO2
-- qu'il ne considere pas comme un polluant... Sans compter qu'il
remet en doute les liens "effet de serre - rechauffement
- emissions de CO2"...
Ci-dessous, le plaidoyer de celui
que l'on surnomme deja "l'homme de paille au service des
interets economiques". En effet, selon un sondage New York
Times-CBS du 14.3.01, 50% des americains pensent que ce n'est
pas Bush qui dirige le gouvernement !
Pour finir, rappelons qu'il traite
le protocole de Kyoto de "injuste et inefficace" (unfair
and ineffective), ce qui est de tres bonne augure pour Bonn, en
juillet, qui devait etre le rattrapage de l'echec de la Haye.
Humainement,
Yves
Lettre officielle du président Bush pour annoncer sa décision
THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press
Secretary
For Immediate Release March 13,
2001
(http://www2.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html)
TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT
TO SENATORS HAGEL, HELMS, CRAIG, AND ROBERTS
Thank you for your letter of
March 6, 2001, asking for the Administration's views on global
climate change, in particular the Kyoto Protocol and efforts to
regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. My Administration
takes the issue of global climate change very seriously.
As you know, I oppose the Kyoto
Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including
major population centers such as China and India, from compliance,
and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. The Senate's
vote, 95-0, shows that there is a clear consensus that the Kyoto
Protocol is an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global
climate change concerns.
As you also know, I support a
comprehensive and balanced national energy policy that takes into
account the importance of improving air quality. Consistent with
this balanced approach, I intend to work with the Congress on
a multipollutant strategy to require power plants to reduce emissions
of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. Any such strategy
would include phasing in reductions over a reasonable period of
time, providing regulatory certainty, and offering market-based
incentives to help industry meet the targets. I do not believe,
however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory
emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a "pollutant"
under the Clean Air Act.
A recently released Department
of Energy Report, "Analysis of Strategies for Reducing Multiple
Emissions from Power Plants," concluded that including caps
on carbon dioxide emissions as part of a multiple emissions strategy
would lead to an even more dramatic shift from coal to natural
gas for electric power generation and significantly higher electricity
prices compared to scenarios in which only sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxides were reduced.
This is important new information
that warrants a reevaluation, especially at a time of rising energy
prices and a serious energy shortage. Coal generates more than
half of America's electricity supply. 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.
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.
Consistent with these concerns,
we will continue to fully examine global climate change issues
-- including the science, technologies, market-based systems,
and innovative options for addressing concentrations of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere. I am very optimistic that, with the proper
focus and working with our friends and allies, we will be able
to develop technologies, market incentives, and other creative
ways to address global climate change.
I look forward to working with you and others to address global
climate change issues in the context of a national energy policy
that protects our environment, consumers, and economy.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
George W. Bush renonce a reglementer les emissions de CO2
LEMONDE.FR, 15.03.01
Le Monde : http://www.lemonde.fr/dh/0,5987,3208--768171,00.html
George W. Bush revient sur ses
promesses electorales et sur les engagements internationaux pris
par son predecesseur en renoncant a reglementer les emissions
de CO2. Le president americain argue d'une crise energetique.
Le president des Etats-Unis,
George W. Bush, a annonce, mercredi 14 mars, qu'il renoncait a
reglementer les emissions de dioxyde de carbone. Cette decision,
contraire tant aux promesses qu'il avait formulees pendant sa
campagne electorale qu'aux engagements internationaux pris par
son predecesseur, Bill Clinton, a souleve la plus vive emotion
sur la scene internationale, comme dans l'opposition democrate
americaine.
George W. Bush a justifie, jeudi 15 mars, son choix par la necessite
d'apporter des solutions de bon sens a la penurie d'energie aux
Etats-Unis. Estimant que les Etats-Unis "traversent une crise
energetique qu'il faut resoudre par des mesures de bon sens",
M. Bush a ajoute : "Il est important non seulement d'encourager
la conservation (d'energie) mais il faut aussi accroitre nos ressources
energetiques pour faire en sorte que les consommateurs puissent
chauffer leurs foyers et que les entreprises grandes ou petites
aient l'energie necessaire pour faire marcher leurs affaires."
M. Bush citait egalement, mercredi
14 mars, une etude recente du departement de l'energie concluant
qu'une reglementation, telle que celle envisagee a la conference
sur le rechauffement climatique (negociations sur le protocole
de Kyoto), haterait le declin des centrales au charbon au profit
du gaz et accelererait encore les hausses de l'energie electrique.
Or plus de 50 % de l'electricite produite aux Etats-Unis provient
de centrales fonctionnant au charbon.
Pour appuyer cette theorie d'une
crise energetique americaine, M. Bush a notamment appuye son argumentation
sur l'exemple de la Californie qui connaissait recemment des penuries
d'electricite. Or, comme le soulignait le New York Times, la plus
grande partie de l'electricite californienne provient de centrales
hydroelectriques.
LEVEE DE BOUCLIERS
La decision du president americain
a naturellement provoque une levee de boucliers dans l'opposition
democrate. Hillary Clinton a denonce "une promesse faite,
une promesse rompue", lors d'une conference de presse au
Senat. Elle a souligne que cette decision risquait d'avoir de
graves repercussions sur le plan international, parce qu'elle
"donne a tous les autres pays une licence pour polluer".
Pour sa part, Joe Lieberman, candidat malheureux a la vice-presidence
americaine, a estime que le president Bush avait "trahi sa
promesse (...) sous la pression de puissants groupes d'interet".
M. Lieberman a indique qu'il introduirait jeudi 15 mars devant
le Senat un projet de loi reunissant des elus democrates et republicains
qui viserait a limiter les emissions de gaz a effet de serre par
les centrales thermiques. Il a toutefois reconnu qu'il prevoyait
"une apre bataille" a ce sujet au Senat.
Les groupes de protection de
l'environnement sont egalement montes au creneau. Phil Clapp,
president du National Environmental Trust, denonce ce president
qui "fait la sourde oreille" aux questions environnementales.
"Cela lui a pris moins de soixante jours pour trahir ses
promesses electorales en matiere d'ecologie."
Au sein meme de son administration,
l'annonce faite par M. Bush tient lieu de desaveu pour certains
: le Guardian rappelle ainsi que Christine Todd Whitman s'etait
encore reclamee recemment de la promesse electorale du candidat
republicain. Meme revers pour Paul O'Neill, secretaire du Tresor,
qui avait recemment evoque le rechauffement de la planete comme
une menace equivalante a celle d'un holocauste nucleaire. Pour
justifier ce revirement, Scott McClellan estime simplement ce
jeudi que "le CO2 n'aurait pas du etre inclus dans la liste
des polluants pendant la campagne. C'etait une erreur."
La communaute internationale
n'a pas plus compris cette volte-face. Les autorites allemandes
attendent pour reagir de "parler directement" avec les
autorites americaines, Gerhard Schroeder se rendant le 29 mars
a Washington. En France, Mme Voynet, ministre de l'environnement
a estime, dans une lettre a son homologue americaine, Christine
Todd Whitman, que "les Etats-Unis, principal pays emetteur
de gaz a effet de serre, prendraient une tres lourde responsabilite
en remettant en cause un accord approuve unanimement par la communaute
internationale pour combattre le changement climatique".
Pour Mme Voynet, cette mesure "constitue une grave remise
en cause du protocole de Kyoto alors qu'a la demande de votre
pays la reprise des negociations sur ses modalites de mise en
oeuvre a ete retardee." Enfin, au nom de la presidence europeenne,
la ministre suedoise des affaires etrangeres, Anna Lindh, dont
le pays assure la presidence tournante de l'UE, a juge, mercredi
14 mars, qu'il etait "primordial que les Etats-Unis ne se
retirent pas des negociations a venir".
De fait, les negociations planetaires
sur les modalites de mise en oeuvre du protocole de Kyoto sur
la reduction des emissions de gaz a effet de serre, dont le CO2
est le principal, doivent reprendre du 16 au 27 juillet a Bonn
(Allemagne).
Vincent Fagot avec AFP
International Herald Tribune
President
Cancels Clean-Air Vow
Douglas Jehl and Andrew C. Revkin New York Times Service Thursday,
March 15, 2001
No New Carbon Dioxide Limits
WASHINGTON Bowing to pressure
from conservative Republicans and industry groups, President George
W. Bush has disowned a campaign pledge and said his administration
would not seek to regulate power plants' emissions of carbon dioxide,
a gas that many scientists say is a key contributor to global
warming.
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 Tuesday 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 U.S. economy.
Less than two weeks ago, Christie
Whitman, the new administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, had described Mr. Bush's campaign promise as if it were
already administration policy.
Administration officials would
not say directly Tuesday whether Mrs. Whitman had supported the
change in position, but they 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.
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
Tuesday that a new 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 that he remained
committed to an energy policy that would seek to improve air quality
by reducing emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury,
which are already regulated as pollutants.
But he said that he no longer supported the position outlined
in a campaign statement of Sept. 26, which had promised to set
"mandatory reduction targets" for carbon dioxide as
well.
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 not just as a potential harm to the economy
but also because it would allow U.S. energy policy, in essence,
to be governed by an international treaty.
The letter was sent to Mr. Helms, Mr. Hagel, Pat Roberts, Republican
of Kansas, and Senator Larry Craig, Republican 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 to policies intended to address global warming and to
meet other environmental goals.
Perhaps for that reason, the
representatives of environmental organizations denounced Mr. Bush's
turnabout in particularly bitter terms.
"Bush is turning his back not only on his campaign pledge,
but on his administrator of the EPA and the world's scientists,
who warn this problem is more serious than we previously thought,"
said Daniel Lashof, a senior scientist for the Natural Resources
Defense Council, a private environmental group.
In the offices of industry lobbyists
and conservative Republican congressmen, on the other hand, there
was a strong sense of triumph about what was seen as Mr. Bush's
belated recognition that it would be a mistake to challenge their
views.
Glenn Kelly, the executive director
of the Global Climate Coalition, which represents industry groups,
said that 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.
EU Official Expresses Concern
The European Union's top environment
official said Wednesday that she was concerned about Mr. Bush's
commitment to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, The Associated
Press reported from Brussels.
In a statement, Margot Wallstroem, the EU's environment commissioner,
called on Mr. Bush to curb carbon dioxide emissions.
"I am concerned about President
Bush's remarks that more research is needed into the causes of
climate change before we know what the solutions are," she
said, responding to Mr. Bush's remarks on Tuesday.
She said that both the EU and the United States knew what was
causing climate change. "Nobody should ignore these warnings,"
she said.
Ainsi que d'autres articles de
l'International Herald Tribune :
http://www.iht.com/articles/13709.htm,
http://www.iht.com/articles/13591.htm.
