William Yeatman

Temparature Effects of Changing Vegatation

by William Yeatman on January 18, 1998

in Science

Natural climate fluctuations and changes in vegetation due to widespread human activities like grazing, deforestation and agriculture can make regions hotter and drier or cooler and wetter, say scientists.

Nearly 100 studies in recent years support the claim that improving the vegetation in drylands regions may cause significant cooling in some of the world’s hottest regions. In the eastern U.S., changes in land use may be overwhelming all other human effects, according to Gordon Bonan of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

Among these studies’ findings:

  • Temperatures along the Mexican-American border between the states of Arizona and Sonora can be more than 8 degrees Celsius cooler on the undergrazed U.S. side than the overgrazed Mexican side.

  • The mean temperature on lands between the 10th and 50th northern latitudes warmed between 1901 and 1990 at a rate equal to 0.4 degrees C per century.

  • The warming rate has been greater in areas designated by the United Nations as overgrazed, 0.6 degrees C per century; whereas areas the U.N. designates as “not overgrazed” have warmed at a rate of only 0.3 degrees C per century.

  • Conversely, in the eastern U.S., the replacement of forests by agricultural crops has resulted in a 1.0 degree C cooling.

Thus some scientists say international efforts to rehabilitate vegetation on drylands, such as the Sahelian or sub-Saharan region of Africa, could significantly cool areas thought to be hotter due to global warming.

Source: Robert C. Balling (Arizona State University), “An Oasis of Cooling? Combating Desertification,” World Climate Report, January 19, 1998.

Open Letter from Grassroots Leaders Concerned About Global Warming Policies

by William Yeatman on January 15, 1998

in Blog

Following is a letter sent by grassroots leaders concerned about the implications of global warming policies to state level policy makers. Many people are concerned that the Clinton Administration, the EPA, and state-level government agencies will attempt to implement the treaty without the approval of Congress.

January 16, 1998

Dear Colleague:

We are writing to enlist your aid in preventing the sblackth implementation of an international climate change treaty by the Clinton White House; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), the national association of state environmental agencies.

On January 21-22, ECOS will hold a conference in Baltimore, Maryland, to make plans for implementing the Kyoto Protocol to the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, also known as the Rio Treaty. The conference, funded in part by the Federal EPA, smacks of bureaucratic arrogance and presumption, since the Kyoto Protocol has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate.

In its conference brochure, ECOS declares that, the Kyoto Protocol having set mandatory targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the United States “must now begin designing policies and programs to meet this goal.” Says who? Since when “must” the United States carry out a treaty that has not ratified by the Senate? By what authority do non-elected bureaucrats decide for the American people, and their elected representatives, which proposed treaty shall, or shall not, be the law of the land?

The ECOS conference brochure continues, “The U.S., a strong proponent of the emissions trading language included in the Protocol, will pursue a package of options that will include the establishment of a domestic and international trading system to move us in the right direction.” ECOS confuses the position of the Clinton Administration with the policy of “the U.S.” The United States is not a proponent of emissions trading or any other element of the Kyoto Protocol, and cannot be until and unless the Senate ratifies the agreement. And the Senate has already expressed its overwhelming disapproval of the kind of agreement negotiated in Kyoto.

Last July, the Senate, by a vote of 95 to 0, adopted a resolution (S. Res. 98) that the U.S. should not be a party to any agreement which would (a) exempt developing countries from similar emissions reduction requirements or (b) do serious harm to the U.S. economy. The Kyoto Protocol fails on both counts. Developing countries are completely exempt, and the agreement would compel Americans to cut their energy use by about one-third.

Asserting that “States and localities will be affected both environmentally and economically by climate change,” the ECOS brochure says the conference will help state environmental agencies develop “cost-effective” “compliance strategies” for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But this begs all of the serious questions at issue.

Is the world actually getting warmer? The satellite record of global temperature, spanning nearly twenty years, shows no global warming – much less one of the magnitude predicted by the computer models on which the climate treaty is based.

Would warming be catastrophic? A modest warming that occurs mostly during winter, at night, and in the higher latitudes (as greenhouse theory predicts) would likely produce positive net benefits – greater agricultural productivity, a reduction in severe storms, even a slowing down of sea level rise (a warmer, wetter atmosphere would increase snowfall in the polar regions, transferring water from the oceans to the ice sheets).

Is energy rationing a sensible way to deal with the potential problems of climate change? Thousands of America’s senior citizens adapt to climate change every year when they move from relatively cold places like Chicago and St. Paul to warmer places like Miami and Phoenix. Since the wealth and creativity of a dynamic market economy are the mainstays of public health and safety, a policy of adaptation to climate change should be the preferred option, not coercive restrictions on people’s access to affordable energy.

The ECOS brochure completely ignores the Kyoto Protocol’s risks and costs. Giving government coercive power over private resources and business decisions is always a risky proposition. The Kyoto Protocol would give participating governments the power to control the energy budgets of countries, industries, perhaps even households. How possibly could that make the world a safer place? Putting government in charge of energy production and consumption would create vast new opportunities for wasteful spending, special-interest regulation, and political mischief.

A related problem is what role the UN would play in monitoring and enforcing compliance with the agreement. Logic suggests that the UN would have to assume massive new powers and responsibilities. Whereas the benefits of emissions reduction are distant, speculative, and diffuse, the costs are immediate, real, and concentrated. Hence every party to the Kyoto Protocol will have strong incentives to cheat. Without an international authority to conduct surprise inspections, keep the books on emissions trades, and punish emissions violators, the whole Kyoto edifice would quickly come crashing down. The bureaucrats at ECOS may feel at home in a new world order of ‘global governance’ under UN auspices. But we believe the potential surrender of American sovereignty implicit in the Kyoto accord is both dangerous and unacceptable.

At a minimum, the Kyoto Protocol would reduce average American household income $2,000 a year by 2010, while increasing energy prices 30% to 55% percent above baseline projections, according to WEFA (formerly Wharton Economic Forecasters Associates). For low-income families and persons (such as seniors) on fixed incomes, the costs of Kyoto would be devastating.

ECOS may claim they are only trying to do what government planners are supposed to do – anticipate the future and plan for it. But the conference transparently has another purpose – to lay the groundwork for implementing a treaty which has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate. The game plan is to make eventual ratification of the Kyoto Protocol more likely, or even unavoidable, by putting in place, beneath the Senate’s radar scope, the policies required to implement that agreement. This strategy is clever – but it is an abuse of taxpayer dollars; it is wrong.

In public policy controversies, it is often helpful to have a motto which sums up what you are fighting for. In the debate over the Kyoto Protocol, our rock-bottom, absolute minimum demand must be, “No Implementation without Ratification!” This is a position both Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, should be proud to support. For it is the position of the U.S. Constitution, as well as being a self-evident requisite of good government.

We urge you to take all appropriate action to ensure that costly and controversial climate change policies are not adopted by stealth and bureaucratic fiat. To that end, we encourage you to ask hard questions of your state’s environmental agency head. Is ECOS going to consider all sides of the climate change debate, or is it going to act as a lobbyist for the Clinton Administration, the UN, and the apocalypse industry? What state law, program, or authority justifies efforts to implement a treaty which has not been ratified?

Sincerely,

Fred L. Smith, President
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Karen Kerrigan, President
Small Business Survival Committee

Grover G. Norquist, President 
Americans for Tax Reform

Thair Phillips, CEO
 The Seniors Coalition

What Positions Did US Negotiators Concede to Reach the Global Climate Agreement?

by William Yeatman on January 14, 1998

  • Gave up its plan to exempt U.S. military training and overseas operations from fuel cutbacks that would be needed for the United States to reach its target.

  • Gave up its opposition to the so-called EU bubble — jargon for a plan that would allow massive increases in greenhouse gasses by Portugal, Spain, Greece and Ireland to be offset by reductions in Germany and Britain.

  • Offered steeper cuts in U.S. emissions — 7 percent below 1990 levels instead of its initial plan to cut pollution to 1990 levels, but not below.

  • Conceded to U.N. bureaucrats some control over U.S. agriculture and forestry policies. Livestock and rice paddies are among the biggest emitters of methane while trees offset the effect by absorbing carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.

  • In the draft treaty, only overseas military actions approved by the United Nations would remain exempt as would training and combat in international waters.

  • China flatly refused to join, telling visiting Rep. John D. Dingell, Michigan Democrat, that it would accept no limits within the next 50 years.

You Think One Kyoto is Bad? Try Thirty; Treaty May Be Moot

by William Yeatman on January 14, 1998

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics

You Think One Kyoto is Bad? Try Thirty

Jorge Sarmiento of Princeton University told Science (December 19, 1997) after the completion of the Kyoto accord that “It is a laudable and reasonable first step, but much deeper emissions cuts will be needed in the not too distant future if we are going to meaningfully reduce the rate of warming.” Indeed, as the treaty now stands increases in developing country emissions will swamp emission reductions by the industrialized countries.

According to Thomas Wigley, a climate researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in order to stabilize emissions (a major objective of the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change) the developing countries would have to freeze emissions at current levels while the industrial countries would have to cut emissions in half. This, according to Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton “might take another 30 Kyotos over the next century.”

But, says Sarmiento, “you have to start somewhere, and the protocol at least provides a framework for revisiting the issue as our understanding improves.”

Treaty May Be Moot

The European Union’s Environment Commissioner, Ritt Bjerregaard, told the European Parliament that the Kyoto treaty may not come into force because of opposition from the United States Senate.

The treaty requires ratification by 55 participants to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change which corresponds to 50 percent of carbon emissions in developed countries. Since the U.S. accounts for 35 percent of the total and Russia accounts for 15 percent, at least one of them would have to ratify the treaty for it to take effect.

Bjerregaard said that “To facilitate U.S. ratification, it is crucial that the [European Union] moves ahead as quickly as possible to maintain the highest possible political pressure” (BNA Daily Environment Report, December 22, 1997).

Global Warming and the Spread of Disease; Yellowstone Park: Environmental Criminal; Another Modeling Error

by William Yeatman on January 14, 1998

in Science

Global Warming and the Spread of Disease

Among the many predicted effects of climate change the least plausible is an increase of vector-borne diseases. The British medical journal, The Lancet (December 20, 1997) discusses these predictions in two articles.

In an open letter signed by physicians, and distributed in Kyoto, warned that a rise in temperature of 1-3.5 degrees C would result in a public health disaster from the spread of diseases such as malaria, dengue and yellow fever.

Paul Epstein, the foremost advocate of this hypothesis, admits that public health programs, poverty and other factors are important, but insists that global warming is also responsible. He also claims that higher temperatures have increased the number of disease-carrying rodents which he believes may have caused the 1993 US hantavirus infection outbreak. Andrew Haines, a London physician, said, “There are some early signs of malaria and other vector-borne diseases being experienced at higher altitudes than was previously the case.”

Another article, however, casts doubt on the claims of Epstein and others. At a symposium on climate change and vector-borne disease at the American Society for Tropical Medicine and Hygiene annual meeting Paul Reiter of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Puerto Rico said that “it is simplistic and misleading to say that climate change will necessarily bring an increase in all these diseases.”

He pointed out that malaria, dengue and yellow fever were all once common in temperate regions, but have disappeared as a result of better housing and sanitation. Duane Gubler of the Center for Disease Control claims that a breakdown of mosquito control, increased mobility and other factors are to blame for increases in these diseases.

Yellowstone Park: Environmental Criminal

Cindy Werner, a geoscience graduate student at Penn State, has found that the Mud Volcano area of Yellowstone National Park emits about 176,300 tons of carbon dioxide each year. Extrapolating these numbers to the entire park Werner estimates that it emits as much as 44 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. That’s equivalent to about ten medium-sized power plants that burn fossil fuels. “We believe,” concluded Werner, “that geothermal systems are significant contributors to global estimates of carbon dioxide” (The New York Times, December 26, 1997).

Another Modeling Error

In an article appearing in Earth Interactions (Vol. I, 1997), a publication of the American Geophysical Union, researchers Y.C. Sud and G.K. Walker look at possible simulation errors that may occur as a result of ignoring the effects of oceanic salinity on the near-surface specific humidity gradient, a primary determinant of oceanic evaporation. All of the general circulation models (GCMs) used at the Goddard Laboratory for Atmospheres ignore oceanic salinity.

A 5-year-long salinity simulation revealed “discernible systematic errors” in the way the models handled “global evaporation, boundary layer specific humidity, and several key parameters that affect the onset of moist convection . . .” The researchers state that “we infer that coupled ocean-atmosphere models that ignore the influence of salinity on ocean evaporation might also benefit from the salinity correction. Indeed, the correction is so trivial to include, its neglect in the modern state-of-the-art GCMs is unwarranted.”

Another Mitigation Option

The atmosphere is not the only place where carbon could end up. The most obvious way to sequester carbon dioxide is in trees. Others possibilities also have been suggested. One option is to pump carbon dioxide in to the deep ocean. Some may balk at transferring “pollution” from medium to another, but given that the ocean already contains 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere the impact would be proportionally smaller.

The most practical option may be putting the gas underground. Oil companies already inject carbon dioxide from underground deposits into deep-seated formations to flush oil from depleted reservoirs. Indeed, a new offshore oil rig constructed by Statoil, a Norwegian oil company, will separate carbon dioxide from natural gas returning the carbon dioxide to a nearby underground formation. By doing this the company will avoid the Norwegian carbon tax (Scientific American, January, 1998).

Etc.

An article in The Economist (December 20, 1997) with the subheading, “Forecasters of scarcity and doom are not only invariably wrong, they think that being wrong proves them right,” pooh-poohs environmental scare stories propagated by the greens. About global warming the article notes: “Today the mother of all environmental scares is global warming. Here the jury is still out. . .” According to The Economist, “Just one environmental scare in the past 30 years bears out the most alarmist predictions made at the time: the effect of DDT (a pesticide) on birds of prey, otters and some other predatory animals. Every other environmental scare has been either wrong or badly exaggerated.”

The story continues, “Environmental scare stories now follow such a predictable line that we can chart their course.” The first year a “scientist discovers some potential threat.” The second year a journalist “oversimplifies and exaggerates it.” In the third year the environmentalists “polarize the issue.” “Either you agree that the world is about to come to an end and are fired by righteous indignation, or you are a paid lackey of big business.” The fourth year a conference is called which keeps bureaucrats “well supplied with club-class tickets and limelight,” moving the debate from science to politics. “A totemic ‘target’ is the key feature.” Fifth year, “pick a villain and gang up on him.” Sixth, the skeptics, who say the fear is exaggerated, come on the scene, “driv[ing] greens into paroxysms of pious rage.” Seventh, “the year of quiet climbdown.” The population explosion went from a maximum of 15 billion to less than 10 billion. “Greenhouse warming was originally going to be ‘uncontrolled’. Then it was going to be 2.5-4 degrees in a century. Then it became 1.5-3 degrees.”

The story concludes with, “Environmentalists are quick to accuse their opponents in business of having vested interests. But their own incomes, their advancement, their fame and their very existence can depend on supporting the most alarming versions of every environmental scare.”

Taxes and Fuel Efficiency Standards Cannot Be Avoided; Ethanol Flop; Japan’s Compliance Plan

by William Yeatman on January 14, 1998

in Blog

The Magic Solution

Most of us have seen the infomercials in which a hyperactive salesman pitches a “no exercise, no dieting” weight-loss program. Most of us are also smart enough to know that losing weight requires some sweat and pain.

The Department of Energy (DOE), however, will have none of that. It is now pitching its own version of the all gain, no pain diet. Joe Romm, DOE’s principal deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy said in a panel discussion sponsored by the Environmental Media Services, that the U.S. can achieve the reduction targets agreed to at Kyoto without reducing energy use and may even be able to increase energy use. “We can get the reductions not by using less energy, but by using cleaner energy,” he said.

Also on the panel was Nancy Kete, director for climate, energy and pollution programs at the World Resources Institute, pitching her own “eat more, weigh less” program. She admits that some jobs will be lost as a result of the Kyoto treaty, but overall there will be net gain in jobs if the U.S. becomes “more carbon efficient” (BNA Daily Environment Report, December 19, 1997).

Renewable Energy Mandates

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has estimated in its report, Annual Energy Outlook 1998, that requiring utilities to derive 5 percent of their energy output from renewable energy sources would reduce emissions by 26 million metric tons between 1996 and 2020. A 10 percent mandate would reduce emissions by 62 million metric tons.

According to EIA Administrator Jay Hakes a renewable energy mandate “would require somewhat higher prices, but the impact does not appear large.” Hakes said that wind, geothermal, and biomass would benefit from such a mandate. Solar energy, however, would probably not benefit as a result of its relatively higher cost (BNA Daily Environment Report, December 19, 1997).

Taxes and Fuel Efficiency Standards Cannot Be Avoided

At a briefing for congressional staffers on Capitol Hill, Steve Plotkin, transportation analyst at the Argonne National Laboratory, stated that, “Without further market intervention, we are not going to achieve the goals” of the Kyoto protocol.

The Clinton administration has maintained that the U.S. can comply with the treaty at little cost using new technologies. This claim is based on a study completed last year by the five national laboratories. But, revealed Plotkin, “the study assumed all along that government would have to impose energy taxes or raise fuel economy standards to attain treaty goals.” Plotkin also said that he was “very pessimistic” that the U.S. can reduce emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2010 (Automotive News, December 22, 1997).

Ethanol Flop

A five-year experiment with ethanol-powered buses by the Greater Peoria Mass Transit District flopped. The Peoria government had purchased 14 ethanol buses to replace about one-third of its diesel-powered fleet. The transit district paid for fuel and maintenance.

The buses, however, were too expensive to operate. “When a part, such as a pump, goes down, you’ve got a one-of-a-kind engine, said Steve Tartar, spokesman for the transit district. “If we can’t get it, that bus sits.” Ethanol also costs about twice as much as diesel fuel.

The National Center for Alternative Fuels at West Virginia University analyzed 32 different ethanol projects, and concluded that “it’s not appropriate at this time to convert fleets to ethanol and too expensive to have multifuel fleets.” Ron Miller, vice president of Pekin Energy Co., who supplied ethanol to Peoria, said that ethanol competes with petroleum products which have “a lot of hidden subsidies which keep those prices artificially low” (Chicago Tribune, December 21, 1997).

Frederico Pena, Secretary of the Department of Energy has said that ethanol will play an important role in greenhouse gas reduction. “We are at the point where ethanol is ready to emerge as a major force in the market,” Pena said. Maybe the Clinton administration should reconsider wasting further subsidies on the ethanol boondoggle (21st Century Fuels, November 1, 1997).

Japan’s Compliance Plan

The Japanese government has announced the breakdown of how it will of lower greenhouse gases by 6 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. Carbon sinks such as forests and vegetation will account for 3.7 percent; helping developing countries through technology transfers and cooperative projects, 1.8 percent; and emission reduction measures, 2.5 percent (Mainichi Daily News, December 31, 1997).

Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry also plans to give subsidies to consumers who purchase “hybrid” cars. Consumers who choose to buy the Toyota Prius, the only hybrid on the market, will receive about 350,000 yen or about $2,700 (Asahi News Service, December 22, 1997).

The Washington Post Comes Clean; Big Business Looks Out for Themselves; New Carbon Emission Forecast

by William Yeatman on December 22, 1997

in Kyoto Negotiations

The Washington Post Comes Clean

Commenting on the climate change agreement penned in Kyoto, the Washington Post (December 12, 1997) warns that the U.S. could see significant cost increases. The Clinton administration is counting on “modest tools, including fuel-efficient technology, such as hybrid gas and electric cars, and business incentives, such as tax breaks, to do the job [of cutting greenhouse gases].” But, argues the Post, significant cuts in emissions “may require a wide array of tools designed to reduce emissions caused by houses, factories, cars and consumption.”

Robert Stavins, an economist of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, claims that the “lowest-cost method” of reducing carbon emissions would be a carbon tax. “It would probably take a tax of $150 per ton of carbon content on fossil fuels,” Stavins said. “That would mean an increase in coal prices of about 350 percent, and about 100 percent on petroleum and natural gas.” For consumers this translates into an average increase in gasoline and residential electricity prices of about 40 percent nationwide, or 3 percent of GDP. “That’s approximately the cost of complying with all other environmental regulations combined,” says Stavins.

This contrasts significantly from statements by President Clinton who said, “I see already the papers are full of people saying, ‘The sky is falling, the sky is falling, it’s a terrible thing.'” The treaty skeptics are not to be believed, according to the President, since the economy remains healthy despite past environmental initiatives. This statement, however, hides the fact that the economy, though growing at a normal rate, is on a lower trajectory than it otherwise would be. Environmental regulations probably do not affect long-term growth rates but they do irrevocably affect long-term wealth. The massive increase in environmental compliance costs that will result from the climate change agreement will have immediate affects on GDP growth and a permanent loss of wealth.

Big Business Looks Out for Themselves

In November, five leaders of major U.S. companies met, at the behest of Fortune magazine (December 8, 1997) to discuss the “corporate, national, and international implications of global warming.” The result was somewhat discouraging. Typical of many corporate CEOs, they were not averse to regulation as long as it doesn’t hurt them relative to others. This attitude was expressed by Paul O’Neill of Alcoa: “The cost implications for Alcoa are enormous. But there’s comfort in the fact that we’re not greatly different from the others in the industry. To maintain a good position in the world, we need to stay ahead of the competition, which I am sure we can do. We’ll be all right.”

Michael Bonsignore who runs Honeywell called for a compromise at least to establish objectives, “including a mechanism to transfer technology from the developed world to the developing world.” Of course, taxpayers would pay for the transfers and Honeywell would reap all the benefits of corporate welfare.

Though the discussion as a whole was disappointing there were a couple of encouraging remarks. Alex Trotman, CEO of Ford Motor, seems to understand the reality of the situation. “One of the things we fear most is that we would have to address stringent targets with today’s technology. We’re a long-lead-time, capital-intensive industry. If we were to change over a number of engine lines, for example, [it would cost] billions of dollars using today’s technology. By the time we’re just about to start making those engines, we will have discovered, I guarantee you, some major leap that we will have negated by investing early.”

Bill Ruckelshaus, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency under Nixon and Reagan, and current chairman of Browning-Ferris Industries said, “What I think the Vice President really needs to do . . . is don’t take science at face value, as though there is no debate. A scientist often will make political pronouncements in the name of science, when what he’s really talking about are policy choices that a cabdriver has the credentials to make as much as him.”

New Carbon Emission Forecast

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has revised its projections for United States carbon emissions, making it more difficult to reduce emissions than previously thought. Faster economic growth and lower energy prices have prompted the EIA to raise its projections by 5 percent, claiming that carbon emissions in the U.S. will increase by 34 percent by the year 2010 and by 45 percent by the year 2020 (Nature, November 20, 1997).

The Kyoto agreement to cut emission by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012 will require the U.S. to cut emission by more than 40 percent below the levels that would have been otherwise achieved.

What Have We Done?; Congressional Reactions

by William Yeatman on December 22, 1997

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics

What Have We Done?

In November the Clinton Administration announced its negotiating position for the upcoming Kyoto conference. It proposed stabilization of emissions at 1990 levels and meaningful participation by developing countries. Negotiators went to Kyoto assuring the American people that if they did not get what it wanted the U.S. delegation would walk away from the treaty. But upon the arrival of Vice President Al Gore, the U.S. promptly conceded its position.

Industrialized nations have agreed to a global warming protocol covering six “greenhouse gases” — carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The U.S. target is 7 percent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012, forcing U.S. emissions more than 40 percent below what they otherwise are projected to be in 2010. Japan’s target was set at 6 percent, and the European Union’s was set at 8 percent while Australia will be allowed to increase emissions by 8 percent above 1990 levels. The treaty does not commit any developing nations to emissions reductions.

There are several disturbing aspects of the treaty. First, the treaty amendment process violates U.S. sovereignty. Articles 19 and 20 of the Protocol states that future climate treaty commitments, approved by three-fourths of the parties, shall “enter into force for those Parties having accepted it on the ninetieth day after . . . [being accepted] by at least three fourths of the Parties to the Protocol.” The failure to clarify that acceptance means the satisfaction of the constitutional requirements of that state would seem to bypass US Senate ratification requirements for treaty obligations. The text also stipulates that “No reservations may be made to this Protocol” [Art. 25], further isolating the climate treaty from democratic procedures.

Second, the treaty does not comply with Byrd-Hagel resolution. The draconian reduction targets agreed to will harm the American economy, and Third World participation is only garnered through the voluntary “Clean Development Mechanism,” whereby financial aid and technology are transferred to developing countries – who will not be held to any energy restriction timetables or goals.

Finally, the treaty threatens world economic growth. Article 2 of the draft Protocol requires nations to promote sustainable development through:

  • “protection and enhancement of [carbon] sinks” [Art. 2.1.a.ii] This provision along with Art. 3.4 on “land-use change” provides for the expansion of land-use controls and forestry restrictions;

  • A “sustainable forms of agriculture” [Art. 2.1.a.iii], implying greater restrictions on farming practices;

  • “Progressive reduction and phasing out of market imperfections, fiscal incentives, tax and duty exemptions” [Art 2.1.a.v].

Under this provision, nations would have to raise taxes on currently untaxed activities as well as raise tariff barriers against certain imports. International trade flows are threatened by protectionism disguised as climate change prevention. Economists have no means of making the vague “market imperfection” concept precise – as worded, this is an open-ended invitation for mischief.

Nations are obligated to pursue regulation of aviation and marine bunker fuels through international agencies [Art 2.2], suggesting further restraints on international trade, transportation and tourism.

President Clinton has said he will not submit the treaty for ratification to the Senate until key developing countries, such as China and India have agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions, which probably won’t happen until 1999, according to the Washington Post (December 12, 1997).

Congressional Reactions

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Tenn) assailed the president for withholding the treaty from ratification “for cynical political reasons.” Lott said, “The president directed his negotiators to sign this treaty. The president should have the strength of his convictions to submit this treaty as soon as possible for the scrutiny of the United States Senate.” Sen. John H. Chafee (R-Rhode Island) said the “possibilities for Senate approval of a treaty appear slim at the moment” (Washington Post, December 12, 1997).

Others have been less charitable. Frank H. Murkowski (R-Alaska) said that agreement “is fundamentally flawed and dead on arrival.” (Washington Times, December 12, 1997). House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) called the agreement “an outrage” and accused the administration of surrendering to pressure in Kyoto. “Early reports indicate that on 10 critical issues such as cuts in emissions, future developing country commitments and new U.S. commitments, we sacrificed the future well-being of the country based on environmental correctness and inconclusive science,” said Gingrich. Senator James M. Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) called the agreement “a political, economic and national security fiasco” (New York Times, December 12, 1997).

Kyoto Negotiations Archive

by William Yeatman on December 14, 1997

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics

Please note these articles were written and posted during the Kyoto global warming conference in 1997. Therefore some of the information may be dated.

Read the Final Kyoto Agreement — You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view this document

Update – Dec. 10 — US Negotiators Sell Out Position to Reach a Tentative Agreement

Update – Dec. 9 — Anticipation Builds for Kyoto Finale

Update – Dec. 8 — Gore Says US Will Compromise Position

Update – Dec. 5 — Third World Fumes

Update – Dec. 4 — Who is Speaking for the US?

Update – Dec. 3 — 500 Physicians, Scientists Oppose Climate Treaty

Update – Dec. 2 — US Changes Stance as Gore Plans to Attend Conference

Update – Dec. 1 — Climate Conference Opens

Update – Nov. 20 — Media contacts available for comments on Kyoto

Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

by William Yeatman on December 9, 1997

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics

KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK
CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Click here for the full document (PDF).

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →