In March 2001, President Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol and has released his own proposal for addressing climate change without the supposed economic crises involved with ratifying the Protocol. See a [short overview] of his proposal or a more [in depth] look.

Bush's rejection of the Protocol has enraged and frustrated citizens and governments around the world who realize the urgency and necessity of emissions reductions.

The basic tenet of Bush's plan is the reduction not of actual CO₂ emissions, but of CO₂ intensity (greenhouse gas production per dollar of GDP). A reduction in CO₂ intensity does not mean a reduction in CO₂ emissions. In fact with Bushís goals, it means just the opposite: increased emissions. The situation is stated very clearly by the World Resource Institute in a [report] released February 14th, 2002:

"The table below compares the projected results from the Bush Administration target with the figures from the most recent 10-year period.

Between 1990 and 2000, GHGs emissions have increased by an average of 1.4 percent per year (14.7 percent total over the decade), while the economy grew by about 3.3 percent per year (38.1 percent total). As a result, GHG intensity declined at an average rate of 1.8 percent per year (-16.9 percent total) over the 1990 to 2000 period. In other words, a falling GHG intensity is normal, since GDP typically rises faster than GHG emissions.

The President announced a goal of reducing GHG intensity from 183 to 151 tons per million dollars of GDP over the 2002 to 2012 time frame. This represents a 17.5 percent reduction in GHG intensity. This is similar to the actual performance of the 1990s (16.9 percent reduction). Because of projected GDP increases, a GHG intensity decline of this size actually implies a 14 percent increase in the absolute levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2012, again, comparable to the emissions rise in the 1990s. Overall, the President's GHG goal is similar to past emission growth rates and will not, under any plausible scenario, actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Reductions could be made through three methods, 1. Through using alternative sources of energy, such as renewable energy sources, 2. Through conservation efforts and reductions of energy demand, and 3. Through emission storage and sequestration.

While the President's plan pursues all of these, it's reduction (limited growth) goals are completely inadequate to mitigate our effect on the worldís climate.

Corporations are playing their part in Bush's policies, both through direct linkages with the administration and through separate action to fight sensible measures to reduce emissions to ensure their profit margins. For instance VP Cheney's Energy Task Force heard overwhelmingly from the oil industry during the formation of it's energy policy. Bush's policies are further influenced by the auto industry, for example, GM, whose chief executive said that the company would oppose not only any move to increase fuel-economy standards for automobiles, but also any effort to tighten the definition under which vehicles are considered light trucks, which qualify for more lenient gas- mileage standards than cars.

Political and corporate irresponsibility and greed must be counterbalanced. The NYTimes reported during Bush's June '01 trip to Europe that a full 50% of Americans support ratification of the Kyoto Protocol despite developing nations non-inclusion in reduction requirements. The popular support is for the Protocol is strong and the people recognize our ethical and moral responsibility to the rest of the world to reduce emissions.