In the parlance of self-help, the first step toward recovery is admitting you have a problem. The Bush administration recently appeared to take a step in that direction with a new report on the effects of climate change on the United States, laying blame for global warming on human activity -- a first for the administration. Yet after news of the report hit the front page of the New York Times, conservatives and industry representatives, who continue to dispute the damaging effects of global warming, went apocalyptic, fearing the administration might actually shape policy around the report’s disturbing conclusions, meaning (gasp!) new regulation. Rush Limbaugh even called President Bush “George W. Al Gore,” according to the Times. Bush Goes Voluntary on Ergo Too Over a year after Congress voted to repeal Clinton-era ergonomics standards at the urging of President Bush, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced on April 5 the release of its replacement "plan" that is nothing more than a smokescreen to mask the administration's unwillingness to seriously address injuries caused by repetitive motion -- the most pressing health and safety issue confronting the workplace today. On June 19, Senate Democrats in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee responded by voting out a bill, sponsored by Sen. John Breaux (D-LA), along straight party lines, 11-10, that would require the administration to issue a final ergonomics rule within two year's of the bill's enactment. An estimated one million workers suffer from serious injuries related to ergonomic hazards each year, according to a January 2001 report from the National Academy of Sciences, and these injuries cost the economy $45 billion to $50 billion annually. Yet the administration appears not to take this seriously. Assailed by AFL-CIO President John Sweeney as "a meaningless measure," the administration’s plan does not commit to enforceable standards, and only mentions Labor's intention to develop voluntary guidelines for industries that it has not yet even identified. Oddly, the administration's plan also calls for the formation of an advisory committee to evaluate research on work-related musculoskeletal disorders caused by repetitive motion, even though this research is the responsibility of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). At the same time, the administration has proposed to cut $20 million from the NIOSH job and safety budget and $10 million from the OSHA enforcement and training budget. Despite Labor Secretary Elaine Chao's stated commitment "to help workers by reducing ergonomic injuries in the shortest possible time frame," corporate interests -- which have fought tooth and nail against any ergonomics standard for more than a decade -- have won out with the Bush administration once again. Alas, there was nothing to worry about. When asked about the report days later, Bush sneered, “I read the report put out by the bureaucracy.” Quickly, EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman fell in line, claiming she hadn’t even reviewed the report before her agency submitted it to the United Nations, honoring treaty obligations. Denial can be difficult to overcome -- especially in this administration, which is loath to place any new requirements on its industry allies, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Indeed, while predicting frightening consequences from global warming -- including rising sea levels, the destruction of ecosystems, and more frequent heat waves -- EPA offers no new recommendations for dealing with the problem. Instead, the administration continues to trumpet its feeble Clear Skies Initiative, announced on Feb. 14, 2002, which aims to combat global warming by “giving businesses incentives to invest in new, cleaner technology and voluntarily reduce greenhouse gases.” In other words, polluting industries can do whatever they want. This sort of voluntary approach is an emerging theme for this administration. Of course, in many cases, the administration has simply repealed Clinton-era rules with no substitute program. But in the case of ergonomics hazards (see box), and now global warming, where public attention has been high, the administration has sought to give the appearance of dealing with the problem while actually doing very little. Depressingly, this approach actually represents an improvement for conservatives. Former Reagan Interior secretary James Watt once suggested that the solution to global warming was a straw hat, sun tan lotion, and sunglasses. When Bush first entered office, there was hope for much more. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush committed to cracking down on carbon dioxide emissions, which are largely responsible for global warming. Since the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased about 28 percent, mostly from fossil fuel combustion (see graphic on front page for a breakdown), which accounted for 98 percent of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 1999, according to EPA’s report. Yet only weeks after he was sworn in, the president famously reversed himself and Whitman, who had wrongly indicated Bush would honor his campaign pledge. Several weeks later, the administration announced the United States -- by far the world’s leading producer of greenhouse gas emissions -- would withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty agreed to in the Clinton administration, committing industrialized nations to mandatory emissions reductions. In its place, the Bush administration committed to devising a new global warming policy, which it said would be less costly. That turned out to be the Clear Skies Initiative. To be sure, the Bush plan is less costly to power plants, coal companies, oil refineries, auto manufacturers, and other polluting industries. Among other things, it specifically addresses power-plant emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide, yet notably excludes measures to combat carbon dioxide. Even worse, the goals set for these emissions are weaker than those already sought under the Clean Air Act, as the Natural Resources Defense Council points out. The administration does set general goals for carbon dioxide emissions, but these are incredibly timid. Indeed, the Bush plan does not aim to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants at all. Rather, after untangling the accounting gimmicks, it merely seeks to “limit” the rate of increase in such emissions to 14 percent over the next 10 years, virtually the same rate as over the last decade. In other words, the Bush plan to combat global warming actually assumes 14 percent more greenhouse gas emissions in 10 years than today. And as a voluntary measure, there’s no assurance even this will be met. Meanwhile, the costs to society as a result of inaction could be astronomical. For example, rising sea levels, as well as more frequent and severe storms, will likely threaten coastal areas, where 53 percent of Americans live. The country’s interior is likely to experience longer and more frequent droughts. And reduced snow-pack could deplete water supplies, particularly in the western United States, where water shortage is already a major issue. EPA does indicate that global warming could aid U.S. agricultural production, yet given our current growing prowess this is hardly consolation. This is not to mention the devastating and irreversible effects on ecosystems. According to EPA, “[T]he natural ecosystems of the Arctic, Great Lakes, Great Basin, and Southeast, and the prairie potholes of the Great Plains appear highly vulnerable to the projected changes in climate.” In Alaska, for instance, whole forests have been wiped out by beetles, which can reproduce at twice their normal rate as a result of the seven degree increase in temperature over the last 30 years, as reported by the New York Times; problems associated with global warming will cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars, according to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK). Yet faced with this information, the administration has chosen to look the other way. In response to EPA’s report, the president’s spokesman, Ari Fleischer, chose to emphasize the uncertainty attached to predictions about the effects of global warming: “There is ‘considerable uncertainty’ -- that’s in this report -- relating to the science of climate change. This report submitted to the United Nations also recognizes that any ‘definitive prediction of potential outcomes is not yet feasible’ and that ‘one of the weakest links in our knowledge is the connection between global and regional predictions of climate change.’” Yet this distracts from the overwhelming scientific consensus on the fundamentals: Global warming is happening; it is associated with human activity; and some very bad things will happen as a result (and as the Alaska example shows, already have). Precisely pinpointing future consequences is much more difficult, and to be sure, does involve uncertainty, and always will. But this should not be an excuse for inaction. Along these lines, conservatives frequently invoke “sound science” as a prerequisite for regulatory action. Indeed, the president’s plan commits to looking at global warming again in 2012 -- conveniently long after Bush will have left office -- to see if “sound science justifies further policy action.” On its face, it’s hard to argue against this phrase; sound science is an essential part of regulatory decision-making. Yet for conservatives and industry, “sound science” is used to imply a level of certainty that could only be achieved through a crystal ball. Amazingly, even on global warming, they have the audacity to claim “sound science” for their side. In reality, the administration’s approach has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with a predetermined outcome whipped along by the political muscle of the fossil fuel industry, which has generously backed the president. The administration dismissed its global warming report not because of the science, but because it doesn’t want to do anything about it. Describing the president’s thinking, Christopher C. Horner, a lawyer at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is heavily funded by industry, told the New York Times, “It was obvious to him that it’s not tenable to say yes, we’re aggressively killing the planet and then not do something aggressive about it. Our fear was that he would have to take severe action.” Instead, we’re left with a political smokescreen. The president’s climate plan proposes $4.5 billion for fiscal year 2003 and claims an increase of $700 million over FY 2002. Yet most of this proposed spending is only a continuation of past work on the science of climate change. In fact, the administration has taken a number of steps that will actually contribute to global warming. The “incentives” in the Clear Skies Initiative, which the administration has used as its chief selling point, actually represent cuts in existing programs to promote energy efficiency. For instance, the administration recommends $7.1 billion in tax incentives for alternative sources of energy over 10 years, which is actually $2.2 billion less than proposed by President Clinton, and its budget cuts federal research and development for energy efficiency by $52 million. Meanwhile, the administration recently decided to relax efforts to crack down on big polluting, older coal-fired power plants under EPA’s New Source Review program; previously fought off legislative efforts to increase fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks; and endorsed subsidies to the fossil fuel industry to the tune of $17.3 billion over the next 10 years. Earlier this month, the last of the European Union nations and Japan ratified the Kyoto Protocol, committing to mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases. The Bush administration, in a state of willful denial, is moving the United States in the opposite direction.