On the eve of the climate negotiations in Bali - our esteemed President George Bush had some great news for us today. US greenhouse gas emissions went down in 2006! A little bit.

What Bush’s statements on the matter (see below) fail to mention that US emissions in 2006 were 15% higher than in 1990, and still 3.2% higher than when he took office. Bush will no doubt claim the reduction was due to his hard work and dedication confronting climate change. Bush is create some support for his climate policies, given that the recent leadership change in Australia may soon leave the US as the only industrialized country that hasn’t signed Kyoto.

But a closer reading of the Energy Information Agency’s report lays bare the real reasons for the slight decline. Says the Department of Energy: “Favorable weather patterns, where both heating and cooling degree-days were lower in 2006 than 2005, and higher energy prices, were the primary causes of lower total energy consumption.”

The first major factor for the decline cited was, “favorable weather conditions,” which the Bush administration had no hand in creating. (Al Gore may have created the internet, but Bush certainly didn’t invent sunny weather) The second factor cited was higher energy prices and increased use of cleaner-burning natural gas. The administration also tries to avoid any responsibility for higher energy prices. And while cleaner-burning natural gas has been on the rise in recent years - the administration’s big push to increase coal usage will overwhelmingly negate this trend. It’s ironic - they lock us into a future generation of dirty coal - but the next administration will be the ones with higher emissions on the statistics books. Similar to how today’s youth will be ones dealing with the messes made by energy choices from our parents’ generation.

The real kicker - is that Bush focuses on “greenhouse gas intensity” - because it makes the story sound better. In 2002 Bush set a goal of cutting “greenhouse gas intensity” 18% by 2012. Sounds like a good start - right? As a recent survey verifies, the average US citizen doesn’t have a strong grasp of essential energy and climate concepts and terms - and Bush is disgustingly exploiting that to his benefit. The concept of “emissions intensity” is to compare emissions in relation to something else - like population, or economic growth, or square footage. Bush’s statements mean that in relation to our economy, our emissions per-dollar of economic activity went down. Which translates to, well, a bunch of nothing - at least in terms of the climate.

Our economy, the GDP, per-capita income - all these things are abstractions that our atmosphere cares absolutely nothing about. What really matters is our absolute emissions - the actual amount of carbon that we are adding to the atmosphere. By the pound. While looking at “emissions intensity” can be a useful viewpoint for some analytical comparisons - this is often a shady method that our government and corporations use to pull the wool over the average Joe and Jane’s eyes. By using “emissions intensity” as the marker - it allows a company or country to grow-grow-grow and claim they are reducing emissions - while the actual damage they are causing to the climate grows as well.

Beyond being deceptive - the real danger in Bush’s statements is that they attempt to neutralize substantive action on climate. Regardless of what numbers may show today - our current energy policies are locking us into skyrocketing emissions for decades to come. Let’s make sure our demand for an immediate moratorium on coal is heard loud and clear - in Congress AND on Wall Street

-Matt

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

I was pleased to receive the Energy Information Administration’s final report today, which includes U.S. greenhouse gas emissions for 2006. The final report shows that emissions declined 1.5 percent from the 2005 level, while our economy grew 2.9 percent. That means greenhouse gas intensity — how much we emit per unit of economic activity — decreased by 4.2 percent, the largest annual improvement since 1985. This puts us well ahead of the goal I set in 2002 to reduce greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent by 2012.

My Administration’s climate change policy is science-based, encourages research breakthroughs that lead to technology development, encourages global participation, and pursues actions that will help ensure continued economic growth and prosperity for our citizens and for people throughout the world. Since 2001, we have spent almost $37 billion on climate science, technology development, and incentives and international assistance. Recently, we convened representatives of the world’s major economies — the largest users of energy and largest producers of greenhouse gas emissions, from both developed and developing nations — to discuss a new international approach on energy security and climate change. Our aim is to agree on a detailed contribution for a new global framework in 2008 that would contribute to a global agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change by 2009. The United States looks forward to working with partners to reach consensus on a “Bali Roadmap” at the upcoming UN meeting on climate change in Indonesia in December.

Energy security and climate change are two of the important challenges of our time. The United States takes these challenges seriously, and we are effectively confronting climate change through regulations, public-private partnerships, incentives, and strong investment in new technologies. Our guiding principle is clear: we must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people.