Yesterday, President Bush announced his new strategy for combating climate change, which one might assume is a diversion from the administration’s “rational, balanced approach,” as Bush calls it. That person, however, would be wrong.

While it is great that Bush is even acknowledging that climate change is a problem, a simple acknowledgement does not make up for his lack-luster proposals. The President’s plan includes stopping the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 and giving $1 billion to Clean Coal Research.

The President stated that adopting Kyoto would have caused our economy to take a hit and would have shifted “American jobs to other countries.” One way of preventing economic and job loss would be to begin appropriating money for the Green Jobs Act of 2007 [pdf] which creates jobs for “energy efficient building, construction and retrofits, renewable electric power, energy efficient vehicles, biofuels, and manufacturing that produces sustainable products and uses sustainable processes and materials.”

The President also took credit for legislation which would set fuel economy standards at 35 mpg by 2020. As GRIST points out, “the administration fought this energy bill tooth and nail, and eventually succeeded in stripping the most ambitious elements out of it.”

The President also criticized those who wish to continue or even begin enforcing environmental protection laws passed 30 year ago:

As we approach this challenge, we face a growing problem here at home. Some courts are taking laws written more than 30 years ago — to primarily address local and regional environmental effects — and applying them to global climate change. The Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate. For example, under a Supreme Court decision last year, the Clean Air Act could be applied to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. This would automatically trigger regulation under the Clean Air Act of greenhouse gases all across our economy — leading to what Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell last week called, “a glorious mess.”

The President is right that the government should not be enforcing 30 year old laws. It should be passing and enforcing laws that are tougher and more broad than those laws.

President Bush is facing criticism for his speech at home and abroad. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) called the President’s plan “the height of irresponsibility.”

South Africa called Bush’s strategy a unilateral approach to confronting climate change:

“There is no way whatsoever that we can agree to what the US is proposing, which means that the fundamental distinction between developed and developing countries should be erased and that we should turn a blind eye to historical responsibility for the problem.

“In effect, the US wants developing countries that already face huge poverty and development challenges to pay for what the US and other highly industrialized countries have caused over the past 150 years,” he said.

House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-MA) said, “By the time President Bush’s plan finally starts to cut global warming emissions, the planet will already be cooked.”

While some people are thrilled to have anything on the table, it is obvious that the President has no real desire to stop climate change or protect the environment. Over the last seven years, Bush has effectively made the Environmental Protection Agency EPA, an agency within his own administration, impotent to being able to protect the environment. Being led by Stephen Johnson, the EPA has no intention of protecting the environment, even if it has been sued or has a court order to do so. Bush’s strategy for combating climate change is nothing but fluff.