Gore Spins El Nio
On behalf of the White House Vice President Al Gore announced at a June 8 press conference that each of the first five months of 1998 had experienced record high temperatures. The high temperatures, according to Gore and scientists who participated in the press conference, were the result of El Nio combined with the overall temperature trend. Gore went on to say that “We set temperature records in every month since January, and it appears that this general warming trend is making the effects of El Nio worse.”
In the White House press release announcing the event, Gore claims that one of the effects of the warming is increased tornado activity. He warned that, “Tornadoes have killed 122 people this year, matching the annual record set in 1984.” In fact, the tornadoes of April 3-4, 1974 killed 315 people, and the Tri-State Tornado of March 18, 1925 killed 695 people. More importantly, there has been no increase in the number or intensity of tornadoes in this country.
He also claimed that “This is a reminder once again that global warming is real and that unless we act we can expect more extreme weather in the years ahead.” The Vice Presidents claim does not jibe with the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: “overall, there is no evidence that extreme weather events, or climate variability, has increased, in a global sense, through the 20th century”
The warm ocean currents of the naturally occurring El Nio phenomenon have indeed raised temperatures of late. However, the New York Times (June 8, 1998) reports that “El Nio has faded, drastically so in the last three weeks, so it is questionable whether the records will hold up for the rest of 1998.”
Al Gores timely press conference capitalized on the temporary temperature spike just before it was expected to end. The purpose: “[to] tell Congress that it is urgent to enact a $6.3 billion, five year program of financial incentives and technological research aimed at cutting emissions” of greenhouse gases (derided as “heat-trapping industrial-waste gases” in the New York Times). Last summer the 37th coolest for the contiguous United States in the last 103 years would not have been a good time to tout global warming legislation.
Third World Refuses to Consider Emission Curbs in Buenos Aires
The 150 countries that are parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are currently meeting in Bonn, Germany. The purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the Fourth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention (COP-4) being held in Buenos Aires from November 2-13, 1998 and to discuss how the Kyoto Protocol will look in practice. One of the issues being debated is developing country participation. The U.S. delegation said that it is important to consider “whether an insufficient number of countries have commitments to curb their emissions of greenhouse gases.”
But the developing countries rejected all talk of their taking on emissions restrictions. A Saudi Arabia delegate said, “No way developing countries will accept an agenda item [for Buenos Aires meeting] on commitments.” And a Chinese delegate said, “The position of the G-77 and China is clear no new commitments in whatever guise or disguise.” Commenting on the Clinton administrations goal to get “meaningful participation by key developing countries,” the Chinese delegate said, “In the UN system, theres no category” of “key developing countries.”
Mexico said that developing country participation should not be discussed until the Kyoto Protocol enters into force (BNA Daily Environment Report, June 6, 1998).
Senator Enzi Plays Hardball
Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wy.), a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, has threatened to hold up three presidential nominations if the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) does not release the Clinton Administrations economic analysis of the costs of complying with the Kyoto Protocol. The nominations are Rebecca M. Blank, for a permanent post on the three-member CEA, and Awilda R. Marquez and Michael J. Copps, for assistant secretaries at the Commerce Department.
Administration officials have testified before various congressional committees that the costs of complying with the Kyoto Protocol will be negligible, but they refuse to release an economic analysis to the public (BNA Daily Environment Report, June 10, 1998). Senate Republicans have also said that they will hold up funding for climate change programs in President Clintons fiscal 1999 budget unless they can get more details about how the Administration is planning to implement the Kyoto Protocol. (BNA Daily Environment Report, June 5, 1998).
U.S. Surrenders Sovereign Rights Under Climate Treaty
The Kyoto Protocol infringes on national sovereignty and transfers considerable decision-making power to international bodies. Thats the conclusion of lawyer James V. DeLong in a paper presented at the U.S. Chamber of Commerces recent conference, “American Sovereignty and Security at Risk.”
The Kyoto treaty, if implemented, would facilitate a massive centralization and aggrandizement of power in countries such as the U.S. “The Protocol may convert decisions usually classified as domestic for purposes of U.S. law and politics into foreign, and thus move substantial power from the Congress, from state and local governments, and from private entities into the federal Executive Branch.”
DeLong warns that the international bodies used to enforce and monitor numerous global environmental treaties are “heavily under the influence of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that are not politically accountable.” This means that voters, taxpayers and consumers are gradually being denied the right to self government as these half public, half private groups gain effective control over important international institutions (The paper, “Treaties, National Sovereignty, and Executive Power: A Report on the Kyoto Protocol,” can be downloaded from www.climatetreaty.com).
Foxes to Guard Hen House?
New United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) director Klaus Tpfer, Germanys ex-environment minister, has submitted a nine-page proposal to incorporate non-governmental organizations into the policy-making process and to assist in “developing relevant scientific advice.”
Tpfer says, “I want to be as close as possible to organizations such as IUCN [International Union for Conservation of Nature] and WWF [World Wide Fund for Nature], as well as other NGOs.
The IUCN has an outstanding tradition. I intensely believe that they can be part of the process.”
Environmental pressure groups are, of course, salivating over the prospect of being granted new process powers. Frank Vorhies, head of the IUCN economics unit in Geneva, said, “IUCN is well placed to play a role as UNEPs technical agency.”
Others are less enthusiastic. Developing countries are especially upset at the prospect of environmental groups having the ability to interfere with their domestic affairs. Rabi Bista, special secretary in the ministry of forests and soil conservation in Nepal, argues that “Conservation is a simple concept made difficult by high paid consultants. In my country, we know which areas need to be conserved. We have no difficulty at the professional level. Local people often know more than people like me in the cities. We dont need more committees [of scientists], we need local action.” Nature (May 14, 1998) notes that “panels set up with environment groups will be seen as partial to the environmentalist view. The role of IUCN may be particularly controversial, as many of its members appear to see conservation as more important that development.”
Catalytic Converters Under the Gun
The catalytic converter is no longer an environmental savior, according to the New York Times (May 29, 1998). Though the device sharply reduced smog emissions from autos, it may be out of favor at the Environmental Protection Agency. A new EPA study says that the converters break down the compounds of nitrogen and oxygen that then combine with hydrocarbons to form nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
Wylie J. Barbour, an EPA official who worked on the study, called this a classic problem. “Youve got people trying to solve one problem, and as is not uncommon, theyve created another.” The New York Times had mistakenly reported that nitrous oxide accounted for 7.2 percent of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, in the Dow Jones Newswires (May 29, 1998) the EPA said that figure was incorrect. “The level is probably closer to 2 percent.” The EPA also noted that “There are still major scientific uncertainties about the contributions that catalytic converters may make to greenhouse gases.”