President Bush announced this week that he was calling for a curbing of greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, and called for Congress to pass climate-change legislation in a new battle against the assumed threat of "global warming." In a seeming reversal of previous Administration positions on global warming, Bush now appears to be addressing the concerns of environmentalists while stressing that reforms should not cost jobs or harm the economy. Although this new direction the Bush administration is taking has drawn criticism from environmental advocacy organizations, who say it's not enough, Bush forgets that wanting to mitigate the impact new legislation has on the economy, and what actually happens, are two entirely separate things.

Much like many of the tough issues facing Americans, people often rush to the government looking for a solution. And in the day and age where neither Republicans nor Democrats hesitate at taking on new powers, the federal government is all too ready to play the part of the hero. However, reality is much different from Hollywood movies, and far too often these reforms have disastrous consequences. Government manipulation of the free market has consistently made recessions worse and economic downturn more severe, and nobody doubts how ineffective the drug war has been. So, why should environmental regulation be looked at any differently?

It takes a very heady detachment from reality to believe that one can simultaneously protect the economy from any sort of impact while calling for new regulations against the private sector. Instead of rushing to the government, which passes legislation that directly impacts private businesses, the power of the market should be the driving force behind environmental reform. Essentially, leave it in the hands of the people to decide.

Unfortunately, the global warming paranoia created from a hyper-sensationalist news media and Hollywood documentaries that play fast and loose with bad science has created a sense of panic and agitation among the American public. Waiting around for the market to speak is too slow, people say; government regulation is much quicker. However, despite all the past legislation that seeks to stymie the impact of global warming on the environment, little good or change has come. In fact, nearly almost every single piece of notable legislation has all seemed to backfire -- and many with worse environmental impact than the legislation originally intended to fix.

The following list is in honor of the tried and failed environmental-based legislation that ended up causing more harm than good:

Banning the light bulb - Among the mountains of pork in last year's energy bill that received the stamp of approval from the Bush administration was a very surreal ban on the light bulb. Starting to be phased-out in 2012, the incandescent light bulb will be replaced by the compact fluorescent (CFL) bulb, despite it being more costly, requiring different consumer-use patterns, known to cause migraines, complicated to recycle and having a higher mercury content. What the government forgot about was that CFL bulbs cannot simply be tossed out because they pose a significant environmental risk as a result of the mercury levels in the bulb, but recycling centers for these bulbs are not well established across the country and prevent proper disposal.

In response Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann has proposed the "Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act," which would reverse the ban unless the GAO can prove the bulbs: save money, reduce carbon emissions and don't pose a serious health risk. Though, while based more on the merit of expediency than the actual belief in consumer freedom, Bachmann's bill accomplishes what sensible politicians (oxymoron?) should have considered in the first place.

FlexFuel - One of the first major moves towards going green in the automotive industry was Congressional pressure to move towards biofuels -- namely those fuels like E85 that are mixed with ethanol, which comes from corn. Many car companies, most notably General Motors, has produced variants of their popular models that can run on these biofuels.

Great idea, right? Not exactly. The demand that biofuels has put on the agriculture industry has sent food prices through the roof. "Congress has already authorized billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies for farmers who grow corn and the producers who turn it into the fuel that's pumped into your car," says David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. "Never mind that ethanol is helping spike food prices. Corn prices have already increased by 70 percent since 2005, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects they will rise an additional 10 percent to 20 percent this year."

Then, too, there is the fact that ethanol fuels actually hurt the environment while increasing the cost of any type of food coming from corn or animals that feed from corn. "A second study, by researchers at Princeton University, came to a similar conclusion, finding that corn-based ethanol would produce twice the greenhouse gas emissions as conventional gasoline over the next 30 years," says Ridenour. "The recently passed energy bill is expected to create even greater demand for ethanol, since it requires the United States to ramp up biofuel production to 36 billion gallons by 2022 from 7.5 billion gallons today."

Federal Land Reserves - Is it any wonder that the area of the United States where the federal government owns the most land also happens to be the area of the United States that seems to be on fire the most? Coincidence? Maybe, but it's doubtful. Regulations on federal land often prevent the burn-off or control of debri on the forest floor, which is one of the leading catalysts of monstrous forest fires. While ranchers and owners of private land can safely maintain their property, federal land adjacent to their property quickly becomes a fire hazard.

Of course, interest groups that lobby for anti-logging legislation and wish all federal land to be left alone as nature intended are all for such asinine legislation. There again, many of them have never lost a home to a preventable forest fire, but that's neither here nor there.

ANWR - Almost anyone that drives a car and has to fill up with gas that costs $3.50 or more might not think twice about running down an Alaskan caribou just for spite. After all, if it weren't for the caribou, the United States might have been able to tap into precious oil deposits in the Artic National Wildlife Reservation, bringing in an untold amount of U.S. produced petro into the American market. However, environmentalists unwilling to disturb the pristine environment of a region of the world where most Americans will probably never venture (nor think about) was blocked from drilling, despite the approval of local Alaskans who would benefit from the jobs and money such operations would create.

To get an idea of how small the footprint of the drilling operations would be, check out this map of ANWR. In case it is hard to see, it's the little red dot.

While Americans are dumping their life savings into their gas tank, they're also paying for the idea that there is a little piece of Alaska untouched by man, where caribous roam free and happy. It's really a nice thought, though not worth price.

If you have anything more to add to the list, please email them to Andrew.davis@lp.org.