Kyoto Negotiations

Governments Agree on Kyotos Costs

Economic studies attempting to ascertain the costs of complying with the Kyoto Protocol almost invariably come to the same conclusion: it will be expensive (the lone exception being a study conducted by the Presidents Council of Economic Advisers). Many of these studies have been criticized as being paid for by industry, and therefore not credible. However, they are rarely criticized on the merits, and for good reason: they are conducted by highly competent economic forecasting firms.

Moreover, these studies are generally supported by studies conducted by government agencies. Mary Novak, Senior Vice President of WEFA Energy Services, evaluated five different government assessments of the costs of the Kyoto Protocol at a conference sponsored by the American Council for Capital Formation on October 13.

Novak reported that the studies are very pessimistic. The five assessments were conducted by the European Commission Directorate General for Energy, the International Energy Agency, the U.S. Department of Energys Energy Information Administration, and the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

These studies all find that the energy sector would be required to make massive reductions in carbon emissions. They also argue that CO₂ emissions are closely linked to all aspects of economic growth and that energy use is essential to improving economic well being.

The studies also found that due to the long-lived nature of energy-using capital equipment, it would be very expensive to further improve energy efficiency in the short time frame contemplated by the Kyoto Protocol. Meeting the Kyoto targets is further complicated in European countries where they are moving to retire nuclear capacity.

Finally, the studies argue that opportunities for meeting the targets through fuel substitution (gas for coal, for instance) are few since there have already been significant advances made along these lines. All of the studies agree that Annex B countries will be unable to meet their Kyoto targets without large carbon taxes or extensive use of flexible mechanisms.

Canada Will Feel Kyoto Pain the Most

So far the U.S. has been nearly alone in its skepticism of global warming claims and the need to spend billions of dollars to prevent it. The Canadians, however, are becoming more and more squeamish about the Kyoto Protocol and its implications.

They have good reason to worry. A new study by Charles River Associates, an economic consulting firm, shows that of all the industrial nations Canada could face the highest costs to reduce energy emissions. “Of all the OECD countries,” says the study, “Canada is probably in the most disadvantageous position to respond to the Kyoto Protocol.” Compliance could reduce Canadas annual economic growth by 0.66 to 2 percent per year.

To meet its Kyoto targets, Canada would have to reduce its energy emissions by 28 percent below the levels that would otherwise be reached in 2010. This would mean raising gasoline prices by 24 cents a liter and doubling natural gas prices. This could also hurt Canadian industrys ability to compete in international markets, since they are already a comparatively high-cost producer (Financial Times, October 26, 1999).

The Cost of Kyoto Under Multi-gas Abatement Strategies

Several studies have been conducted to determine the costs of complying with the Kyoto Protocol. The conclusions of these studies have ranged from the Clinton-Gore Administration study that claims very little cost to studies conducted by private economic consulting firms that have estimated much higher costs.

A new study appearing in Nature (October 7, 1999) takes a look at abatement costs from a different angle. Whereas most studies have concentrated on the costs of meeting Kyoto targets by reducing CO₂, the Nature study, conducted by researchers at MIT, takes into account the fact that participating countries can reduce multiple gases under the Kyoto Protocol.

The researchers rank the six different gases according to marginal abatement costs under the assumption that a country will begin their abatement efforts with lowest-cost options first, moving towards the higher-cost options until the target is met. They also look at three different scenarios; a CO₂ target and control, a multi-gas target with CO₂ control only, and a multi-gas target and controls. Whereas previous studies concentrated on the first scenario, the Nature study concentrates on the two latter scenarios.

According to the study, under the first scenario the U.S. emission target would be 571 megatons of carbon equivalent (MtC equiv.). The cost would be $187 per ton of carbon equivalent (tC equiv.). Under scenario two, the U.S. would have to meet a target of 650 MtC equiv. at a cost of $229 per tC equiv. Under scenario three, the target would be the same as scenario two at a cost of $150 per tC equiv.

The media has made much of this study and its claim that a multi-gas strategy would significantly reduce the costs of meeting the Kyoto target. It should be noted that the lowest cost option is still far greater than the costs estimated by the Presidents Council of Economic Advisers, which claims that abatement costs will be $14 – $23 per ton of CO₂ abated.

Finally, the study assumes a 2.4 degree C rise in temperature over the next century under a business as usual scenario. The study argues that meeting the Kyoto target under the second and third scenarios will reduce the assumed temperature rise by about 17 percent or roughly a half-degree by the year 2100, although reductions in the poles may be much greater.

Are Tradeable Emission Permits the Solution?

Tradeable emission permits have been touted by the Clinton-Gore Administration as the path to cheap compliance with the Kyoto Protocol. Several studies have cast doubt on these claims, such as the study by the Energy Information Administration and a policy brief by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. A new study by Roy Cordato, an economist and holder of the Lundy Chair of Business Philosophy at Campbell University, takes a more fundamental look at the claims behind tradeable emission permits.

Cordato assumes, for the sake of the study, that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes predictions of global warming are true. He argues that for claims about emission trading to be true several things must be known. First, the costs and benefits of global warming must be known. “To be certain of the costs and benefits,” says Cordato, “we must know how the resources that would have to be shifted to avert global warming would be used if no action were taken, and how people would value those resources in their alternative uses.”

He further argues that, “We must be able to guess the choices and gauge the feelings of people not yet born, living during a period 50 to 100 years from now and beyond. There is no scientific way to determine this information; it is beyond our knowledge.” The report will be available soon at www.iret.org.

Kyoto: Costs Exceed Benefits

Its one thing when climate treaty opponents demonstrate that implementing the Kyoto Protocol will be expensive and harmful to the economic wellbeing of the American people. Its quite another when a Yale economist who advocates collective global action to prevent global warming comes to the same conclusion. On December 18, at a seminar sponsored by Resources for the Future, William Nordhaus argued that the Kyoto Protocol is “flawed, and maybe fatally flawed.”

According to Nordhaus, the protocol has two serious shortcomings. First, it does not require the developing countries to restrict their rapidly growing emissions. Second, reliance on emission trading is a bad idea. When you have a fixed supply of a good, as would be the case with emission credits, it leads to a great deal of price volatility, Nordhaus said. This could lead to hundreds of billions of dollars in losses per year. Nordhaus favors a system of harmonized taxes on emissions.

Nordhaus also argued that the Kyoto Protocol is “much too ambitious” and will be too costly to implement. According to his economic model, the Kyoto Protocol would have modest benefits but substantial costs. He also argued that the economic effects of global warming will be modest. Nordhaus did several runs of the model under different policy scenarios. The optimal scenario (a perfect treaty, with perfect agreement on the perfect policies with perfect implementation) was virtually identical, in terms of the effects on the economy, to the scenario in which we wait ten years before acting. Both scenarios would lead to significant economic benefits. Regardless Nordhaus argued that we should act now, and that procrastinating now will make it easier to procrastinate in the future. The Kyoto scenario would lead to significant economic losses (www.weathervane.rff.org).

Low Gasoline Prices Assailed

Nineteen ninety-eight has seen the lowest gasoline prices in recent memory. For the U.S. prices for regular unleaded gasoline has fallen to 97.4 cents per gallon. While most people are thrilled with this development some “wet blankets” are arguing that prices are too low. The New Republic (December 21, 1998) exclaims, “We have long said that gas prices should be higher.” These low prices, it argues, provide the perfect opportunity for the government to “raise prices in a way that will benefit the public as a whole, rather than either OPEC or the Exxon Mobil Corporation.” It then proposes a 17 cents-per-gallon increase in the federal excise tax on gasoline. Increasing gas prices, says TNR, “would go a long way toward solving many of the negative side-effects of cheap gas.”

If the government had the cash instead of the people, it could save Social Security, raise the Earned Income Tax Credit, or provide health care for the working poor, according to TNR. This, of course, ignores the benefits of cheap gas. Spending less on gasoline allows people to spend more on other things, such as food, clothing, housing, and even retirement and health care.

EIA Report Attacked and Defended

The Energy Information Administration has come under some heat lately for producing an economic analysis of the costs of complying with the Kyoto Protocol that contradicts the Clinton Administrations own analysis. One such attack occurred on an internet forum (www.weathervane.rff.org) for global warming issues. Dr. Joseph Romm, former Department of Energy chief of energy efficiency and renewable energy technology, viciously attacked the report as “so riddled with economic flaws, analytical errors and outrageous policy assumptions that it is rendered completely irrelevant.”

Romm accuses the EIA of failing to model the actual treaty rules. But Mary J. Hutzler, Director of EIAs Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting says EIA “did model the treaty.” Kyoto cannot be more fully modeled because so many of its provisions are incomplete, such as emissions trading.

Romm also charges the EIA with neglecting market and policy responses to the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including electricity deregulation. Hutzler points out that all of these are accounted for in the EIA analysis. Market response is accounted for by “adding a carbon component to end-use energy prices as the signal for the market to respond.” As for government policies, she says that EIA, “incorporated all proactive Government policies and regulations that have been sufficiently specified and adopted.” She also points out that “some studies of the Kyoto Protocol assume future unspecified policies that produce miraculous results without having made specific evaluation of their benefits and costs.”

Romms claim that the EIA assumes “frozen monopoly utility regulation” is wrong, according to Hutzler. “In fact,” she says, “we assume a totally deregulated wholesale electricity market and competitive pricing in those regions that have legislation or other binding rules in place. We were the first organization to publish a study of fully competitive electricity prices.”

Finally, contrary to Romms assertions, the EIA study “represented the specific provisions in the Clean Air Act that are precisely specified and that have gone through the clearance procedures to become final actions,” and “all known advanced technologies whose estimated commercial availability date is within our forecast horizon.”

New York Expected to be Hardest Hit by Kyoto Protocol

The cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is expected to be higher for New York than any other state in the U.S. This is because New York is the most energy efficient state in the country, according to Douglas Hill and Samuel Morris, researchers with the New York City-based Regional Plan Association. Costs in New York City will be even higher because it receives less of its energy from hydropower sources than upstate regions. As a result New York will have to rely more heavily on emissions trading to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Hill and Morris argue that New York and other state and local governments should claim the right to engage in emissions trading. They also argue that New York “should take advantage of its status as an international center for business and finance to develop a trading market” in greenhouse gas emissions.

Other recommendations to the state include “promot[ing] the development, production, and export of new energy efficient technology, and the creation of “a model of an energy efficient commercial and industrial economy” (BNA Daily Environment Report, November 23, 1998). Already we are seeing the many interest groups, both governmental and nongovernmental, trying to position themselves to avoid harm from the Kyoto Protocol and to capture whatever spoils may be available. The signing and ratification of the Kyoto Protocol are just the first steps. After that governments, businesses and other interest groups will fight to avoid being the big losers

Washington, D.C., November 12, 1998 — In statements released today, consumers, senior citizens, small business, minority, and public policy groups denounced the President’s signing of the Kyoto Protocol — the global warming treaty. The non-profit groups stressed the high human costs of the treaty’s drastic restrictions on energy use — costs that will be borne by people, especially lower-income people, in every aspect of their lives.

The organizations, members of the National Consumer Coalition’s “Cooler Heads Coalition,” note the growing scientific uncertainties over whether global warming is occurring, and, if so, whether that reflects natural or anthropogenic factors. Yet, despite this uncertainty and with clear evidence of the economic and social harm resulting from the treaty, the Administration has made an end-run around the American public. “Cooler Heads” members argue that the signing of the Kyoto Protocol shows contempt for American citizens and the Constitution an effort to by-pass the safeguards against poorly considered treaties. This Administration has sought to alarm, rather than inform the American public, and has bombarded them with global warming myths based on fears rather than facts.

Here is what “Cooler Heads” members have to say:

60 Plus Association

“People, not politics, was the Presidents slogan prior to the November elections. It now appears politics, not people, prevails. Clearly, scientific data strongly countermands this Administrations political posturing on global warming. People will suffer, especially seniors living on fixed incomes, due to the exorbitantly higher energy costs triggered by this Administrations politics as usual catering to special interests.”

— Jim Martin, President

Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

“The Kyoto Protocol is a bad deal, it’s based on bad science, and it would mean bad times for people not only in America, but throughout the rest of the world, as well. By signing this terrible treaty during the current United Nations conference in Buenos Aires, the Clinton Administration has once again shown that it would rather dance the tango with radical environmentalists than listen to the music of sound science, real-world economics, and the best interests of the American people.”

— David Rothbard, President

Competitive Enterprise Institute

“President Clintons signing of the Kyoto protocol will deliver a devastating blow to the economic and environmental interests of the world. A vibrant US economy offers the most secure path to a richer, cleaner, ecologically diverse planet. Imposing a poorly considered carbon withdrawal program on the US will harm the poor at home and abroad, and undermine Americas ability to address serious environmental and social needs.”

— Fred Smith, President

Consumer Alert

“The signing of the global arming treaty means that consumers will be left out in the cold they will bear the brunt of drastic cutbacks in energy use. It has become increasingly clear that the science supporting global warming is uncertain at best and misleading at worst. Yet, despite this uncertainty, the Administration is steering a straight course toward economic disaster for the American people severe restrictions on energy use; huge increases in prices for heating oil, transportation, electricity, food; and large drops in employment. Although Administration cheerleaders for the global warming treaty deny this consumer impact, even a recent Department of Energy analysis by the Energy Information Administration reinforces this somber assessment. The risks of global warming are speculative; the risks of global warming policies are all too real.”

— Frances B. Smith, Executive Director

Cooler Heads Coalition

“President Clinton’s signing of the Kyoto Protocol is unconscionable. There is no scientific justification for the Kyoto Protocol, the costs are potentially devastating, and the whole attempt to plan the worlds energy economy for the next 50-100 years is an exercise in futility, not to mention the height of arrogance. Furthermore, the Administration failed to achieve any of the diplomatic objectives they previously said were essential. Despite almost two weeks of negotiation, there has been no agreement among the parties to allow unrestricted emission trading among industrial countries, no agreement by developing countries to undertake voluntary commitments, no agreement even as to the meaning of meaningful participation. There is only one way Clinton can undo the damage he has done. He must submit the Protocol for a vote on ratification, so that the E.S. Senate, exercising its constitutional prerogatives of advice and consent, can give the Kyoto Protocol the burial it deserves.”

— Marlo Lewis, Chairman

Defenders of Property Rights

“President Clintons signing of the Kyoto Protocol is a threat to the property rights of all Americans, especially small business owners. Many small businesses will be forced to close their doors because of higher food and fuel prices. The lack of sound scientific evidence to support the Protocol, notably the lack of credible evidence linking greenhouse emissions and global climate changes, should be reason enough not to subject the American economy to such social tinkering. However, there is also a strong constitutional argument against the United States signing onto the agreement. Namely, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids the federal government from engaging in actions that destroy property rights (in this case small businesses) without payment of just compensation.”

— Nancie G. Marzulla, President and Chief Legal Counsel

Pacific Research Institute

“President Clinton has committed an egregious act by signing the Kyoto Protocol. The severe rationing of energy use and production required to meet the terms of the international agreement will cripple the U.S. economy and mean enormous sacrifices from every family, business, and organization in the nation. Californians will be among the worst hit, given the states heavy reliance on oil and natural gas. Residents of the Golden State can expect to pay an additional $3 billion to $10 billion a year in higher energy bills. The Presidents claims that the agreements impact on American people will be minimal has been shot down by numerous economic reports, most recently by the U.S. Department of Energy which shows that the typical American household will pay an additional $335 to $1,740 a year in energy costs by the year 2010.”

— Dana Joel Gattuso, Director of Research

The Seniors Coalition

“The President, in defiance of the 95 – 0 sense of the Senate vote last year, has signed a treaty that will have a dire impact on America’s senior citizens. His own agencies have predicted the huge impact this treaty will have on gas and electrical prices. The President has misread the results of last weeks election if he thinks it was a mandate for him to run rough-shod over the American people. Over the past year, almost 20 thousand seniors have mailed petitions to the President urging him not to sign this treaty. By signing this ill-conceived treaty he chose to ignore the voice of seniors. The President has spoken repeatedly about putting progress before partisanship, but the fact is, the terms of the climate change Treaty do just the reverse, stymying American economic progress but furthering the cause of the year 2000 Presidential election partisanship. Mr. Clinton has exercised his prerogative as head of state to sign the Treaty and now he has a constitutional obligation to submit the Treaty to the Senate for ratification. We urge him to do so immediately.”

— Thair Phillips, CEO

Small Business Survival Committee

“The President’s shifty strategy that put off signing this controversial accord until after the elections is the perfect ending to a stealth process that kept most of the American public and the Congress in the dark regarding the science and economics used to justify Administration support of the treaty. In plain language, President Clinton just sold out the country. His callous disregard of the concerns of American workers, consumers and small businesses is tragic. This lopsided and phony environmental treaty remains a bad deal for America.”

— Karen Kerrigan, President

The National Center for Public Policy Research

“By signing the Kyoto Protocol, President Clinton demonstrated that he cares little about the needs of the nations most disadvantaged Americans. Should the treaty be ratified by the U.S. Senate, the United States would be required to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and thus its fossil fuel use by more than 30% — more than three times the emissions reduction that occurred as a result of the Great Depression. The economic consequences of such a cut would be severe: The U.S. would experience a loss in Gross Domestic Product of up to $300 billion per year and a loss of up to 2.4 million jobs. Prices for electricity and gasoline would soar. Tragically, such price increases would take their heaviest toll on the nations most economically disadvantaged people, predominantly African-Americans and Hispanics.”

— David Ridenour, Vice President

Produced at the UN global warming conference by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The US Congressional delegation today declared the Kyoto Protocol “dead on arrival.” Members of the US Congress expressed hearty disapproval of President Clintons apparent decision to sign the Kyoto Protocol. They also called on Clinton to submit the Protocol to the Senate for ratification as soon as it is signed.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chairman of the House Science Committee and head of the US Congressional delegation to COP-4, made two key points. First, he contradicted Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstats assertion that President Clintons signing of the Kyoto Protocol, if it occurs, would have only “symbolic” significance. President Clintons signature would carry a great deal of expectation of future US involvement in energy suppression efforts.

Secondly, Chairman Sensenbrenner explained that the Clinton-Gore administration has negotiated itself into a corner with no exit. The US Senates 1997 Byrd-Hagel resolution, passed by a 95-0 margin, preemptively nixes any protocol that does not include emission restrictions for developing countries “within the same compliance period.” The Protocol conspicuously lacks this feature. Without amending the treaty, the Senate will not ratify, but without ratification of the treaty, the UN parties cannot amend it. Thus, the treaty is a dead letter as far as Congress is concerned.

Republican Reps. Joe Barton (TX), Joe Ann Emerson (MO), Joe Knollenberg (MI), and Democratic Representative Ron Klink of Pennsylvania also took part in the briefing. However, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) boycotted the Buenos Aires conference “in protest” against President Clintons apparent decision to sign the Kyoto treaty.

At issue in the US delegations press briefing was whether desperately poor countries could afford to participate meaningfully in emissions reductions. Rep. Klink emphasized the importance of wealth in protecting people and the environment. Poverty is a leading cause of environmental degradation. Hurricane Mitch has killed thousands in Central America but almost none in Florida. Americans are safer during extreme weather events because they are wealthier. And one reason America has high living standards is that we “built our economy on relatively inexpensive carbon fuels,” said the Pennsylvania Democrat.

Asked what “meaningful participation” by key developing countries means, Chairman Sensenbrenner complained that Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstat gave him “three or four possible meanings of meaningful.” In Buenos Aires, meaningful participation seems to mean developing countries agree to be recipients of U.S. money and technology transfers. Few Senators are likely to find these arguments persuasive.

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) sent a letter to President Clinton reminding him that signing the Protocol would violate the “plain language” of the Byrd-Hagel resolution. Signing the Protocol now, in Sen. Byrds view, would also undermine U.S. leverage in future negotiations with major developing countries like China and India. Senior Democrats in the House and Senate have remarkably similar opinions about the global warming treaty.

At the US delegations evening press briefing, Undersecretary Eizenstat repeated the Clinton administrationws shopworn claims: the science is settled and recent weather is proof that global warming is upon us. Questions from the press that attempted to challenge his claims were shot down with a curt statement that it is now “too late to talk about the science.” The 17,000 scientists who signed an anti-Kyoto petition organized by the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine would probably beg to differ.

One reporter asked Eizenstat to name one scientist that believes the science is settled, but the US negotiator was either unable or unwilling to do so. The exchange was proof positive that politics not science is the primary consideration of the US executive branch.

The press conference turned ugly when reporters began engaging in the customary America bashing. Members of the foreign press corps demanded to know why the US would not negotiate certain issues, including caps on emissions trading. Of course, if the rumors are true, Vice President Al Gore will soon be in Buenos Aires to give the UN conference a boost. Upon his arrival, expect a repeat of Kyoto as the US caves in to pressure and compromises its chief negotiating positions.

Last week, conference president Maria Julia Alsogaray held a moment of silence to honor the Central American victims of Hurricane Mitch. The global warming treaty now under negotiation would leave the poor more vulnerable to natural disasters of this type. We think the international communitys failure to consider the plight of the Third Worlds poor at COP-4 demands that conference negotiators spend the rest of the week in silence.

The global warming conference in Buenos Aires got off to a rocky start. Only 2,000 people reportedly participated in the events first week, a far cry from the 10,000+ that attended the December 1997 conference in Kyoto. The Green non-governmental organization (NGO) lobby appears to be dispirited, and expectations for COP-4 are very low indeed. Early in the conference, China and the Group of 77 underdeveloped countries refused to consider the possibility of voluntarily participating in global carbon suppression efforts under the climate treaty. The Kyoto Protocol probably remains doomed in the US Senate without the Third World consenting to energy use restrictions.

Reminiscent of Kyoto, the Buenos Aires conference is replete with absurd Green symbolism. NGO observers are given a document briefcase full of global warming propaganda. Theres only one problem it is made out of 100 percent recycled cardboard! The case is flimsy enough on a dry day, but on Friday it is raining (because of global warming, perhaps?) and the cardboard will not withstand inclement weather. Such are the sacrifices we must all make for ecology.

On Friday, November 6, the Buenos Aires conference started taking on water, literally. Rainwater leaked into the city Exposition Center, flooding the office facilities of several government and NGO delegations. The delgations of Japan, Canada, and the US were wholly or partially under water. “Were not hit as bad as Japan, but weve had to move all of our computers away from the water,” Acting Assistant Secretary of State Melinda Kimble told Cooler Heads as she scrambled to safety. We always knew the ship of State was adrift, but now we know it is a leaky vessel as well.

The Global Climate Coalition and Edison Electric Institute booths looked like they were struck by a greenhouse hurricane. At first, when it appeared that only the industry coalition was affected, Greenpeace exclaimed that it was “a sign from God.” But their office started getting wet a few minutes later, along with the World Wildlife Funds. All sides are experiencing the perils of government inefficiency in the provision of services, especially in an underdeveloped country.

A fleet of natural gaspowered, eco-buses sits in front of the Exposition Center that is hosting the conference. Good thing they were donated by Mercedes-Benz not many conference-goers are availing themselves of the ecologically correct transportation service. “I have to be somewhere in five minutes,” complained a woman who had just been informed that the eco-shuttles depart every fifteen minutes. She took a taxi, like most folks. One eco-bus was observed leaving the Exposition Center with only one passenger. Thanks, Mercedes-Benz, for reminding us all once again how wasteful eco-transportation really is.

Conference participants were actively herded into a meeting room for an end-of-week wrap up, presented by representatives from WWF, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and Climate Action Network. At the sparsely-attended press conference, a Green activist demanded the creation of “solid frameworks around the flexibility mechanisms.” Multiple oxymoronic phrases like this one are uttered in treaty-speak, often in succession.

If you dont toe the party line, you are not welcome in these halls. The Buenos Aires Journal cancelled a planned interview with atmospheric physicist Dr. Fred Singer, explaining that higher ups had nixed the story. When asked who had ordered the news blackout on Singer, our source denied it was the Argentine government, but admitted it was someone “close to” the government. Only pseudo-science is respected, as when the the Buenos Aires Herald trumpeted WWFs preposterous prediction that global warming will produce an epidemic of dengue fever in Argentina. This despite the fact that the real experts in the field, like Dr. Paul Reiter at the Centers for Disease Control, contend that temperature has abslutely nothing to do with outbreaks of the disease.

At mid-conference, COP-4 has produced nothing in the way of a consensus. Developing countries rejected US overtures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, insisting that energy use is deperately needed to overcome poverty. The delegation from China ridiculed US proposals for “voluntary” emissions reduction commitments, noting the contradiction between “voluntary” and “commitment.” Already, work plans are being developed to address virtually all contentious issues at next years conference in either Morocco or Jordan.

In a desperate effort to salvage COP-4, Conference President Maria Julia Alsaguray, Argentinas minister for the environment, is facilitating side negotiations between a handful of developing countries and the U.S. The talks are rumored to include Argentina, Mexico, Chile, and South Korea. These countries are discussing “voluntary commitments” in exchange for generous technology transfers and other aid from the US but only outside the formal treaty framework of the Kyoto Protocol. The big players, China and India, are still firmly opposed to any Third World energy use restrictions being included in the global warming treaty.

The Cooler Heads Coalition, made up of 22 non-profit public policy organizations, is a subgroup of the 4 million member National Consumer Coalition, founded by Consumer Alert. For more information about global warming, contact Jim Sheehan at 312-4061 (Lancaster Hotel) in Buenos Aires or Jonathan Adler or Paul Georgia at 202-331-1010 in Washington, DC