As the World Warms, the White House Aspires

By Dana Milbank
Friday, June 1, 2007

Yesterday, as the temperature pushed toward 90 degrees in the capital, global warming caused a meltdown in the Bush administration's message machine.

Just as President Bush was about to wheel out his "new international climate change framework," the NASA administrator, Michael Griffin, declared that there is no need to take action against global warming.

"Whether that is a long-term concern or not, I can't say," he said in an interview with National Public Radio, adding: "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with." In fact, Griffin found it "rather arrogant" to suggest that global warming is a bad thing.

A couple of hours after the broadcast, Griffin's boss took the stage at the Ronald Reagan Building to endorse just such arrogance -- an initiative aimed at reducing greenhouse gases. "The United States takes this issue seriously," Bush said.

This mixed message led to a rather cool reception for Jim Connaughton, the president's adviser on the environment, as he briefed reporters on the plan at noon.

"Will the new framework consist of binding commitments or voluntary commitments?" asked CBS News's Jim Axelrod.

"In this instance, you have a long-term, aspirational goal," Connaughton answered.

Aspirational goal? Like having the body you want without diet or exercise? Or getting rich without working?

"I'm confused," Axelrod said. "Does that mean there will be targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions, and that everybody will be making binding commitments?"

"The commitment at the international level will be to a long-term, aspirational goal," the Bush aide repeated.

Axelrod had his answer. "Voluntary," he concluded.

"Well," said Connaughton, "I want to be careful about the word 'voluntary.' "

Connaughton may want to be careful, but the plan the White House outlined yesterday listed no concrete targets or dates, no enforcement mechanism and no penalties for noncompliance. It also wouldn't take effect until four years after Bush leaves office. It was, rather, a call to spend the final 18 months of the Bush presidency forming an aspirational goal.

This caused environmentalists to get hot. The Natural Resources Defense Council pointed out that "three of the world's top oil companies have called for stricter performance standards than the soft objectives put forth by the White House today."

On the other hand, the plan fit neatly with the cold calculations of NASA's Griffin, who, in an interview taped Wednesday for broadcast Thursday morning, suggested that melting polar ice caps might be good for us.

"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate," he reasoned, adding: "I guess I would ask which human beings, where and when, are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

And Griffin should know: His résumé, posted on the NASA Web site, lists seven degrees: a bachelor's in physics, a PhD in aerospace engineering, and five master's degrees -- in aerospace science, electrical engineering, applied physics, business administration and civil engineering.

Connaughton, presented with the highly educated Griffin's words, attempted the delicate task of defending the president without denouncing the NASA administrator. "This is a serious issue," he said. "It deserves a sensible response."

Sensible -- but not mandatory. At his briefing, Connaughton spent half an hour fielding heated questions about the proposal's tepidity.

ABC News's Martha Raddatz asked why a binding climate-change agreement wouldn't work. "It's just challenging because you're trying to deal with big economic issues," Connaughton explained.

The Los Angeles Times' Jim Gerstenzang asked what penalty would be paid for missing a target. "One is to understand why they didn't hit their mark," the Bush aide answered.

AP Radio's Mark Smith, pointing out that the G-8 is hoping to have a climate-change consensus next week, asked whether Bush's proposal "effectively kicks the can down the road until the end of the president's time in office."

"Actually, it's the opposite of that," Connaughton said.

"Why did it take six years?" asked Ron Hutcheson of McClatchy Newspapers.

Connaughton explained that it's "taken us a few years to get experience with what's working."

The New York Times' Sheryl Stolberg had the nerve to ask Connaughton when, under Bush's plan, we might "see the world actually cutting greenhouse gas emissions."

"This is the hard conversation we have to have," the aide said.

How about the administration's own aspirational goal?

"We are in a very active discussion about that internally," he said.

With Griffin at the table, it could hardly be otherwise.