Despite reported differences within the administration and some intense criticism from without, President George W. Bush and his staff have remained publicly on-message in his reversal on a campaign promise to limit carbon dioxide emissions by power plants.

On March 13, Bush rejected proposed limits on emissions, justifying his turnaround on the issue by saying they could lead to major increases in energy prices.

Since that time the White House has shown no sign of weakening its new position on the issue. Bush's chief economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey appeared on "Meet the Press" on March 18 to further warn that the carbon dioxide limits could lead to even more energy blackouts like those in California.

"We have a choice in this country of having the lights on or, at least in the short run, having more carbon dioxide," Lindsey said.

Bush outlined the policy change in letters to a handful of Republican Senators.

"We've got an energy crisis in America that we have to deal with in a common-sense way," he later told reporters, while defending the shift on March 14 in East Brunswick, N.J., "We use a lot of coal, and we need a lot of coal to fuel our plants, to make sure people have got the ability to heat and cool their homes."

But it all depends on how you define "crisis." In his statement, Bush made a point of using the word four times to describe the current spike in gas prices.

Environmentalists and many of the world's scientists apply the word to another matter -- the prospect of the world's average temperature heating up by ten degrees over the next century, which they say is a looming crisis of apocalyptic proportions.

The president's political opponents weren't the only ones who were taken aback by the unusually blunt reversal of Bush's position. There were also those within the Bush cabinet -- most notably EPA Director Christine Todd Whitman -- who had publicly backed emissions control as central to Bush's proposals on climate change.

At the recent G-8 Environment Summit in Trieste, Italy, meeting with ministers from major industrialized countries Ms. Whitman pledged that the US would support emissions control standards. The immediate reversal by Bush was an embarrassment for Whitman, who had outlined a stance that the Bush Administration would be a dependable ally in the war against the greenhouse effect.

Apparently her words generated a crisis atmosphere among lobbyists for coal and utility companies, including Edison Electric, who strongly oppose mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions. And they quickly found a sympathetic ear in Vice President Dick Cheney, whose duties include chairmanship of the president's energy task force.

This should make it clear to those in the Bush administration just who has the upper hand when it comes to running the country. Not only was Cheney able to persuade Bush to contradict Christie Whitman, whose job it is in theory, to have the greatest influence in determining the nation's environmental policy. He was able to get Bush to contradict the president's own previously clearly defined position in favor of emissions control.

During his campaign, Bush had accused Al Gore and the Clinton Administration of not doing enough to control CO2 emissions. "My opponent calls for voluntary reductions in such emissions. In Texas we've done better -- with mandatory reductions, and I believe the nation can do better," he said in an environmental position paper.

When confronted with the apparent contradiction, the Bush team seemed to have little to say. They insisted, to many observers unconvincingly, that the document was a misstatement of the president's actual position, and that it was written under the impression that CO2 emissions were already subject to mandatory controls.

Is Bush's reversal on the issue a political mistake? Many pro-environmental Republicans and others are disappointed by it. The quick retraction of Christie Whitman's statements seem to point to growing divisions in a cabinet that is filled with strong-minded people. Environmental groups are certainly disappointed, but their upset was greater in December of 1993, when the Clinton administration -- which they expected would toe their line -- announced that CO2 emissions controls for utilities would be "voluntary."

At any rate, the CO2 volte-face may be one more opportunity for George W. to leave his stamp. To his detractors, it appears to be a bitter warning to all who were wooed into believing that he was an environmentally moderate president. He may consider the problem of global warming "serious," but as long as Dick Cheney has his ear, the executive office is going to do very little to turn down the heat. He has four more years -- at least. That's a lot of CO2.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/malkin.htm Unbecomingly Green By Micheal Malkin; Washington Times; March 16, 2001: Is George W. giving in to the tree-huggers?

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/ed-house-2001315174613.htm George W. Takes A Stand on CO2 Editorial; Washington Times; March 15, 2001: By refusing to pass emissions standards, George W. is looking out for the interests of the average American.

http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/03/15/emissions/index.html Bush's Big Reversal By Anthony York and Dawn MacKeen; Salon.com.; March 15, 2001: Reversal of pledge causes a firestorm of criticism from Dems, moderate Republicans, enviornmentalists, and international leaders.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/16/whitan.epa/index.html EPA Downplays Strains Over Emissions Controversy CNN; March 16, 2001: Chief of the EPA says that reversal of promise to limit CO2 emissions has not strained her ability to work with George W. Bush

http://www.unfccc.de/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html Kyoto Protocol. Text to Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change