George W. Bush: Much Better in Retrospect

- OR -

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Begrudgingly Respect

a Select Few Things About GWB

OK, let’s get something straight: I am no fan of George W. Bush. I voted against him twice, I worked to defeat him in 2004, and I think he can legitimately be blamed, at least in part, for many of our nation’s current woes. That he used gay marriage as a wedge issue to help increase conservative voter turnout in 2004 was hateful and unforgiveable.

But the story of why most Americans (and especially progressives) dislike GWB has already been written many times over. And while I don’t think it should be forgotten, I’m here to embark on a different endeavor: to discuss the aspects of GWB’s presidency that are somewhat under-appreciated by the left.

Once again, this series of blog posts is not meant to change any minds about the Bush Presidency overall. I do hope it provides a little perspective, especially when comparing the policies of GWB with those of the current Republican Party. So, without further ado, let’s get started…

For the past several years, Cap and Trade has been the policy vehicle that environmentalist have advocated in order to address global warming. Without going into too many details, the way it works is that an overall limit (or “cap”) is set on allowable CO₂ emissions. The government sells permits to companies that want to emit CO₂. If a company wants to emit more CO₂ than their permit allows, they must purchase another company’s permit. In this way, a price is put on carbon pollution, thereby providing financial incentives for companies to pollute less. For this reason, Cap and Trade is known as a market-based approach to addressing climate change. It’s also an approach we know works because it was successfully used to address the problem of acid rain.

Although the current Republican Party opposes this approach, (derisively calling it “Cap and Tax”) quite recently many leading Republicans had endorsed a form of Cap and Trade. The list includes past Presidential nominee John McCain and current Presidential candidates Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman. What had remained unnoticed until recently is that GWB had also endorsed Cap and Trade during his presidency . . . at least he sort of did.

According to a recent book written by former Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer, GWB was planning on explicitly endorsing Cap and Trade in an early 2008 speech. Although pushback from some of his conservative advisors led him to drop the term Cap and Trade from the speech, GWB still endorsed the major mechanics behind Cap and Trade. Here’s the relevant quote:

Today we have different incentives for different technologies—from nuclear power, to clean coal, to wind and solar energy.  What we need to do is consolidate them into a single, expanded program with the following features.

First, the incentive should be carbon-weighted to make lower emission power sources less expensive relative to higher emissions sources—and it should take into account our nation's energy security needs.

Second, the incentive should be technology-neutral because the government should not be picking winners and losers in this emerging market.

Third, the incentive should be long-lasting.  It should provide a positive and reliable market signal not only for the investment in a technology, but also for the investments in domestic manufacturing capacity and infrastructure that will help lower costs and scale up availability.

Although vague, GWB certainly appeared to be endorsing the concept behind Cap and Trade. And yet nobody seemed to notice at the time. The press didn’t accurately report on it (it was said that GWB came out AGAINST Cap and Trade), no deals were made, no legislation was passed. Now that the Republican Party has turned on Cap and Trade the state of climate change legislation is worse than it was in 2008.

It should be mentioned that an unpopular president in the last year of his presidency endorsing a policy in such a way that people don’t even notice is not exactly a profile in courage. I do, however, think it is both noteworthy and sad that arguably the most conservative president of the Post WWII era endorsed a good piece of policy that would become a non-starter in his own party within 4 years. It also makes me wonder what would have happened if Democrats had seized on this in 2008 and actually tried to cut a deal with Bush on Cap and Trade legislation. I doubt it could have happened, but you never know.

***

Keith Doughty is a non-profit finance professional who in his spare time dabbles in music, politics, and interesting food. He lives and works in Philadelphia, PA.

Contact him at neuroticmonkey.