Bowles, I

===
<div id="mw-content-text" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr" lang="en">Ian Bowles "is a Senior Research Fellow in the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Belfer_Center_for_Science_and_International_Affairs" title="Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs">Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs</a> at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University and a Senior Advisor to the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Gordon_and_Betty_Moore_Foundation" title="Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation">Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation</a>. Previously, he served as Senior Director of Global Environmental Affairs at the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/National_Security_Council" title="National Security Council" class="mw-redirect">National Security Council</a> and as Associate Director of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/White_House_Council_on_Environmental_Quality" title="White House Council on Environmental Quality" class="mw-redirect">White House Council on Environmental Quality</a> from 1999-2001. Prior to that, he was Vice President for Conservation Policy at <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Conservation_International" title="Conservation International">Conservation International</a>." <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Ian_Bowles#cite_note-0">[1]</a>

<ul><li>Advisor, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/All_Species_Foundation" title="All Species Foundation">All Species Foundation</a></li></ul>

<h2> Resources and articles</h2>

<h3> Related Sourcewatch articles</h3>

<h3> References</h3>

<ol class="references"><li id="cite_note-0"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Ian_Bowles#cite_ref-0">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070205051805/www.all-species.org/advisors.html">Advisors</a>, Cached Page (2007), accessed October 15, 2008.</li></ol>

</div>

        
    
    
            
    <div id="catlinks" class="catlinks"><div id="mw-normal-catlinks" class="mw-normal-catlinks"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Special:Categories" title="Special:Categories">Categories</a>: <ul><li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:United_States" title="Category:United States">United States</a></li><li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Environment" title="Category:Environment">Environment</a></li></ul></div></div><br />==<br />suskind:<br />dept of state Daniel Bodansky already targeted; anon memo on st dept lttrrhead to 5 cons gop sen: hagel, helms, also attacked NSC Ian Bowles (both BC, as gore supporters) want to wedge&nbsp; b2 between bad policy and bad PR, off the rez; hagel sent widely, incl armitage and evans at commerce 104<br />==<br />

<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr align="left"><td><div align="left">ublished on Sunday, April 22, 2001 in the <a href="http://www.boston.com/globe">Boston Globe</a> </div>

</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>

<div align="left"> Environmental Meltdown in the White House </div>

</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>

<div align="left">by Ian Bowles</div>

</td></tr><tr><td height="10"> </td></tr><tr align="left" valign="top"><td>

WHAT A DIFFERENCE a few months make. In mid-January, I was asked to stay

on for a couple of months in the White House to advise President Bush's

team on environmental issues such as global warning and natural

resources.

Yes, I was a Clinton political appointee, but I felt the issues

were important.I had no idea that anti-environmental positions would

become the defining element of the first 100 days of the Bush

presidency.

Despite my disappointment about the election results, I thought

in January that there were a few specific reasons for hope on

environmental policy under Bush. Hadn't he promised to take significant

new steps to fight global warming, promoted an ambitious plan to save

the world's threatened tropical forests, and campaigned on

''compassionate conservation'' and a ''humble foreign policy''?

Fast forward to the events of the last month. Brushing aside the

consultations with electric utilities and environmental organizations

that led to his historic campaign commitment last fall, the White House

quickly reversed its pledge to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from

power plants. While first saying the CO2 pledge was simply ''a

mistake,'' the White House later said the reversal was due to an ''an

energy crisis'' and ''uncertain'' science about the causes of global

warning.

These justifications struck me as wrong and misleading.

Long-term efforts to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants have nothing

to do with botched deregulation of retail electricity prices in

California and are entirely unrelated to the price of petroleum at the

pump for Americans. Perhaps more important, the basic link between

carbon dioxide emissions, accumulation of greenhouse gases in the

atmosphere, and the phenomenon of climatic change is not seriously

disputed in the scientific community. I left the White House the

following week.

Shortly thereafter, the administration declared the Kyoto accords

on global warming to be ''dead,'' including for the 185 other

countries that have been working on them for six years.

Reactions from Europe were swift and predictably strong:

''Surely, you have specific changes you seek? The United States is too

important to walk away from the challenge of global warming.'' Calls,

delegations, and diplomatic protests have streamed into Washington. It's

still front page news in Europe today.

What about tropical forests? Last October candidate Bush caught

my attention with his striking press statement. ''Environmental groups

have harshly criticized Al Gore's record on global warming and

deforestation, while Governor Bush has offered a plan that will help

protect the endangered tropical forests of Latin and South America.''

Bush promised to both take aggressive steps on CO2 and

dramatically expand US efforts on tropical forests through ''a minimum

of $100 million per year'' for an innovative ''debt-for-nature'' swap

program.

In the budget, however, the White House asked for zero new funds

for this program, and instead requests the ability to divert $13 million

from another agency's limited environmental funding to keep the program

barely alive. Robbing Peter to pay Paul and asking Congress to give

one-eighth of the funds from your only specific commitment to

international environmental issues isn't leadership. It's malpractice.

In the name of ''balance,'' the administration is taking on a

laundry list of environmental goals ranging from reducing arsenic

levels in drinking water and funding for renewable energy to protections

for forests and national monuments, from new road building and oil

drilling. Perversely, its signature energy/environment issue seems to be

drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Last week, the

White House made a modest set of announcements to support some

environmental regulations from the previous administration and to sign a

hazardous chemicals treaty we negotiated over the last several years.

While positive, these are decisions to maintain the status quo. Instead

of showing new leadership, the Bush administration has defined itself on

the environment by breaking two important campaign promises and by a

series of decisions about whether or not to roll back the achievements

of the Clinton administration. Too often, the decisions have been

against the environment.

These are not the actions of an administration interested in

representing the views of mainstream Americans but the actions of an

administration focused on pleasing the right wing and the minority of

industry that can't see the forest for the trees.

There will be a backlash from both the voters and Congress. When

historians write about his first 100 days, they will view the

environment as Bush's Achilles' heel.

Ian Bowles, co-author of ''Footprints in the Jungle,'' was

President Clinton's senior adviser on environmental issues at the

National Security Council.

</td></tr></tbody></table>
==
With 14,000 clean tech jobs and the second-highest amount of venture

capital financing for green business after California, Massachusetts is

betting big on sustainability, the state's energy and environmental

affairs secretary said today.

Ian Bowles said more than 550 businesses are involved in clean tech

statewide, a number that he hopes to grow with new incubators affiliated

with MIT, for example.

In addition, the state has regained its national leadership

environmentally since January 2006, Bowles told Boston.com readers in an

Earth Day question-and-answer session.

"We became the first state to start requiring greenhouse gas curbs in

new real estate projects,'' Bowles said. "Governor Patrick has made

clean energy technology a central part of our economic strategy.

Candidly, the Bush Administration continues to block needed steps

forward on greenhouse gases. I'm hopeful the next President will make

the United States a global leader again on these challenges.''