Blog

Early Credit for Emissions Reductions; New York Times Assesses Buenos Aires

by William Yeatman on December 8, 1998

in Politics

Early Credit for Emissions Reductions

The latest attempt to implement the Kyoto Protocol without Senate ratification is a scheme to use the threat of future mandatory emission reductions to compel industry to “voluntarily” reduce emissions. In return, they will receive valuable emissions credits. Dirk Forrister, chairman of the White House Task Force on Climate Change, told a conference that “credit for early action, would encourage industry to begin curbing greenhouse gas emissions in the expectation that emission reductions eventually may become mandatory. The credits earned through voluntary action could be applied to any required cuts in emissions or traded domestically or internationally.”

The Clinton Administration has developed a set of guiding principles for an early credit system. The system should give credit for reductions of all six of the major greenhouse gases “from any source in any sector of the economy.” It should also give credit for any actions that offset carbon emissions, such as land use and forestry changes. The system should also:

  • “be simple and straightforward, not complicated;

  • provide a fair reward for environmental improvement;

  • appeal to industry broadly and not just attract companies with newer, more efficient technologies;

  • provide information to the public about credits, helping to ensure that businesses get the same amount of credit for similar actions or efforts;

  • be consistent with an international emission trading system for greenhouse gases, which is under development, to ensure that credits earned through the program could be traded abroad; and

  • not create prejudices about a possible domestic greenhouse gas emission trading system.”

Forrister said that the administration formulated its principles through discussions with various industry sectors such as aluminum, steel, electric power, forest products, cement, natural gas pipeline, and commercial real estate industries (BNA Daily Environment Report, December 8, 1998).

The “Paper of Record” Assesses Buenos Aires

Very little of note happened at the fourth conference of the parties in Buenos Aires, other than a largely symbolic signing of the Kyoto Protocol by the United States. The two largest points of controversy, developing country participation, and emissions trading, were not resolved, even though the U.S. delegation claimed otherwise.

New York Times (December 8, 1998) writer John Cushman performed a post-mortem on the international gabfest and tried to put the best face possible on the proceedings. Regarding the two major issues Cushman said, “Negotiators at the conference settled on an ambitious two-year timetable for resolving those and other sticking points. But that means approval cannot come until after the 2000 elections, if it occurs at all.”

Eileen Claussen, former State Department negotiator and executive director of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change said “Kyoto is not dead. But I dont know if this can be done in two years.” Michael Oppenheimer for the Environmental Defense Fund said, “If significant progress is not made by the year 2000, we will never make the 2008 deadlines of the treaty. We have to get the rules in place, or the time will slip away.” Connie Holmes, the chairman of the Global Climate Coalition doesnt believe that the Kyoto Protocol will be ratified. “In about 2001 or 2002, people are going to say, . . . we cant do this, lets stretch this thing out. You need more time if you are going to change as radically as this.”

Regarding the issue of developing country participation, Cushman pointed out that China and India are still resistant to accepting emissions reduction targets. Latin America and Africa are interested but “want guarantees that they will get their share of the aid.” And as Stuart Eizenstat, the chief U.S. negotiator, said “The monolithic phalanx that we saw in Kyoto in opposition to any and all participation has completely broken down.” This was prompted by Argentinas and Kazakhstans agreeing to accept emissions reductions.

The issue of emissions trading saw very little progress. The European nations are still insisting that there be a limit on the extent to which emissions trading can be used to reduce emissions. Many developing nations are also opposed to unlimited trading. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund claims that the other nations are using this as a bargaining chip against the U.S., but that resistance is weakening.

One issue that is becoming important is “credit for early action.” Cushman wrote, “Many companies have already invested in energy saving and other approaches to cut their emissions, or are planning to do so soon.” Legislation has been introduced to give them credit for doing so. According to Todd Stern, the White House official who coordinates the Administrations climate policy, “This is really the one area involving the whole issue of greenhouse gases where I think everybody ought to be able to agree.” Indeed, says Cushman, companies who are opposed to the Kyoto Protocol “are lobbying hard to get credits for early action, just in case.”

Worst Year for Weather-Related Disasters?

by William Yeatman on December 8, 1998

in Blog

Global warming proponents have used several dubious methods to convince people that the weather is getting worse as a result of manmade global warming. One way has been to extensively publicize every major weather event to give the impression that weather-related disasters are on the rise. Another way has been to use rising insurance claim numbers to argue that there are more weather-related disasters. Both of these methods give a false impression of reality, however.

The Worldwatch Institute and Munich Re, a reinsurance company out of Switzerland, have produced a report claiming that 1998 “has already set a new record for economic losses from weather-related disasters.” Storms, floods, droughts, and fires have caused at least $89 billion in economic losses so far in 1998. They also claim that “32,000 people have been killed, and another 300 million . . . have been displaced or forced to resettle because of extreme weather events in 1998” (www.worldwatch.org).

The problem with these numbers is that they tell us nothing about the frequency of extreme weather events. They tell us only the frequency or severity of weather events that cause economic loss. To understand how global warming may effect weather, it is necessary to look at all extreme weather events. Several peer-reviewed studies have not found an increase in floods, droughts, hurricanes or other extreme weather events. Other studies that have used economic loss numbers, adjusted for population growth, GDP, wealth and other factors, failed to find a positive trend in economically harmful weather events.

Hansen Falls Back to Weaker Position; Greening of Planet Earth Continues;

by William Yeatman on November 24, 1998

in Science

Hansen Falls Back to Weaker Position

In 1988 James Hansen, a climate modeler with NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies, put global warming on the political map and in the press by exclaiming before Al Gore in a Senate hearing that he was 95 percent sure that manmade global warming was upon us. However in the most recent issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (October 1998) he makes a startling statement. In the first sentence of the abstract he states, “The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.”

The study discusses several climate forcings, both positive and negative, that effect the earths climate. The purpose of the study, says Hansen, et al, is to “provide a perspective on current understanding of global climate forcings, in effect an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

The reason it is so difficult to predict future climate change, says Hansen, is that “anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs), which are well measured, cause a strong positive (warming) forcing. But other, poorly measured, anthropogenic forcings, especially changes of atmospheric aerosols, clouds, and land-use patterns, cause a negative forcing that tends to offset greenhouse warming. One consequence of this partial balance is that the natural forcing due to solar irradiance changes may play a larger role in long-term climate change than inferred from GHGs alone.”

His discussion of solar irradiance is important because he challenges the notion that “climate forcing due to solar variability is negligible because it is much smaller than GHG forcing.” According to Hansen, “a more relevant comparison is with the net forcing by all other known mechanisms.” This net forcing, says Hansen, is probably only about 1 W/m2 (watt per square meter). “Thus,” says Hansen, “a solar forcing of even 0.4 W/m2 could have played a substantial role in climate change during the Industrial era.”

The Greening Earth

The Greening Earth Society has just released a video titled, The Greening of Planet Earth Continues, that reviews the global warming controversy. It begins by pointing out that we have records of the suns energy output, as measured by the sunspot cycle, for the last 400 years, since the time of Galileo. It turns out, says Sallie Baliunas, senior astrophysicist with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, that “the ups and downs of the suns magnetism match up very well with these changes in the climate of the earth. So we estimate that most of the changes of the last several hundred years . . . can be caused by these fluctuations in the suns energy output.”

The video also argues that the human race has flourished during warmer periods and stagnated during cooler periods. Two previous periods, known as “The Climatic Optimum” and the “Little Climatic Optimum” were warmer than it is now. “A slightly warmer world and an enriched carbon dioxide world will mean plant growth is more vigorous,” says Thomas Gale Moore, a Senior Fellow with the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. “The bottom of the food chain is plants. All animals eat plants or eat animals that eat plants, including us.”

The video also discusses the shortcomings of General Circulation Models. The different components of the climate system are very complex, according to Roy Spencer, a senior scientist with NASAs Marshall Space Flight Center. “They interact in non-linear ways which we really cant predict. One thing changes, which changes something else, which changes something else. Theres this cascade of processes.” The bottom line is that the models predictions have failed to conform to what has occurred.

The main point of the video is the central importance of carbon dioxide for life on earth. As pointed out by Sylvan Wittwer, professor emeritus of horticulture, Michigan State University, “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient a very important nutrient, perhaps the most important.” Increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be a boon to farmers and to plant life in general. Not only does it provide plants with the most important nutrient, it also increases water-use efficiency and nitrogen-use efficiency, both very important for plants.

One statement by Patrick Michaels, a climatologist with the University of Virginia, sums up the videos arguments: “The evidence that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going to cause a disaster is somewhere between slim and none. However, the evidence that its doing a good thing by lengthening the growing season and making plants grow better is somewhere between large and overwhelming.” The video can be acquired by contacting the Greening Earth Society at (703) 907-6168 or info@greeningearthsociety.org.

Etc.

In an editorial about scientific literacy Vice President Al Gore decried what he perceives to be industrys exploitation of the publics scientific ignorance to oppose ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. “But industry opponents of the Kyoto Protocol are also attempting to undermine public support for the protocol by funding a massive public relations campaign attacking the findings of the worlds expert climate scientists,” says Gore. “This assault takes political advantage of the fact that too many Americans lack sufficient science literacy to tell the difference between sound science and sound bites.”

Gore goes on to say, “public understanding and support for reasonable climate change policies will be critical. But scientific literacy is necessary if we are to engage in an informed and rational debate. Unfortunately, scientific illiteracy means that too many Americans will be easy marks for anti-scientific public relation ploys.” Someone should remind Gore that over 17,000 scientifically literate persons signed the Oregon Petition that rejected the global warming hypothesis.

EIA Report Attacked and Defended; New York Expected to be Hardest Hit by Kyoto Protocol

by William Yeatman on November 24, 1998

in Kyoto Negotiations

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

Combining Montreal with Kyoto; Senator Hagel Proposes New Climate Treaty

by William Yeatman on November 24, 1998

in Politics

Combining Montreal with Kyoto 

Many issues were discussed at the climate change talks in Buenos Aires this month, but one of the most disturbing was the call “for greater scientific cooperation between the ozone depletion and climate change treaty organizations, recognizing the links between the two, human-induced atmospheric crises.”

On November 23 in Cairo, Egypt, United Nations Environment Program Director Klaus Tpfer, referring to the two protocols, told the 10th Conference of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer that “we have to think of the many inter-linkages between the global environment issues and ensure that all our actions will serve the environment as a whole.”

Two of the six greenhouse gases that have been targeted for reduction under the Kyoto Protocol are hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), both of which were recommended as ozone safe replacements for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CFCs were banned under the Montreal Protocol. Parties to the Montreal Protocol are expected to adopt a resolution similar to the one adopted in Buenos Aires and could eventually lead to its involvement in global warming issues and an outright ban on HFCs. Since HFCs are “ozone friendly,” such a move by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol would be a massive expansion of the Protocols regulatory power.

If this occurs it would spell trouble for the developing countries that have been encouraged to use HFCs as CFC substitutes. Refrigeration is vital to the health and well being of people living in developing countries. In 1999 the developing countries will be required to begin phasing out the use of CFCs. Any investments in HFCs that may have already been made would be wasted if they are banned under the Montreal Protocol. This may also be another attempt at implementation without ratification (BNA Daily Environment Report, November 24, 1998).

Senator Hagel Proposes New Climate Treaty

In a speech before the Economic Strategy Institute, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said that the Kyoto Protocol “is not ratifiable or achievable.” He also pledged that Congress “will continue to do everything we did this year to stop back-door implementation of Kyoto.”

He then argued, however, that the Kyoto Protocol needed to be replaced with a better plan, a plan that incorporates “sound science” and involves all “interested parties.” The “issues of protecting the environment and finding a viable solution for cutting greenhouse gas emissions have become secondary to the protocol itself,” said Hagel. “Weve got to start over,” he declared (BNA Daily Environment Report, November 20, 1998).

Senator Hagels remarks were echoed by the executive vice president of the American Petroleum Institute, William OKeefe, who called for a new framework for reducing greenhouse gases. “Politicians loathe to admit that they made a mistake in Kyoto,” OKeefe said. They “need to rethink how to proceed on a basis on which 170 countries are working toward a common objective” (BNA Daily Environment Report, November 12, 1998).

Consumers, Seniors, Small Business Groups, Minorities Say President’s Signing of Kyoto Protocol Will Have High Human Cost

by William Yeatman on November 11, 1998

in Kyoto Negotiations

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

Report from Our Team in Buenos Aires; Senator Byrd Urges the President not to Sign the Kyoto Protocol; Poll Finds Opposition to

by William Yeatman on November 10, 1998

in Politics

 Report from Our Team in Buenos Aires

  • 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 lobby appears to be dispirited, and expectations for COP-4 are very low. Early in the conference, China and the Group of 77 underdeveloped countries refused to consider the possibility of voluntarily participating in global carbon suppression under the climate treaty. President Clintons signature notwithstanding, the Kyoto Protocol probably remains doomed in the U.S. Senate without the Third World consenting to energy use restrictions.

  • Developing countries rejected U.S. overtures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, insisting that energy use is desperately needed to overcome poverty. The delegation from China ridiculed U.S. 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 an 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 U.S. but only outside the formal treaty framework of the Kyoto Protocol. The big players, China and India, are still firmly opposed to including any Third World energy use restrictions in the global warming treaty.

  • Members of the U.S. Congress expressed 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 U.S. 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 would have only “symbolic” significance. President Clintons signature would carry a great deal of expectation of future U.S. involvement in energy suppression efforts.

Secondly, Chairman Sensenbrenner explained that the Clinton-Gore administration has negotiated itself into a corner with no exit. The U.S. 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.

Senator Byrd Urges the President not to Sign the Kyoto Protocol

Senator Robert Byrd, a cosponsor of the Byrd/Hagel resolution, is also upset about President Clintons decision. Byrd warned the President that “signing the Kyoto protocol now would be contrary to the plain language of Senate resolution 98 . . . passed by a unanimous vote of 95-0 . . . . The consensus of the Senate remains that the United States should not be a signatory to the Kyoto protocol until and unless that agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions by developing country parties within the same compliance period . . . . The Senate’s position has not changed since the resolution was passed.” That condition has not yet been met, said Byrd.

Byrd also argued that signing the protocol would not improve the U.S.s negotiating position to secure developing country participation. Rather, it would be an “empty gesture.” Finally, Byrd noted that signing the protocol would “lend credence” to those Members who have concerns about the administrations attempts to implement the protocl through a “regulatory backdoor.” Byrd fears that signing the protocol would “jeapordize continued funding for even those existing [global warming] programs.”

Poll Finds Opposition to Kyoto Protocol

A new poll conducted by Wirthlin Worldwide for the Global Climate Coalition shows strong oppostion to the Kyoto Protocol. “More than six in ten Americans believe the UN global climate change treaty negotiated in Kyoto will be expensive for American households and should not be implemented.” Sixty-eight percent of American voters agreed that more research is needed before the United States commits itself to binding emissions reductions, but seventy-one percent said that they believe the U.S. should speed up voluntary programs to reduce emissions. Fifty-four percent said that President Clinton should immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol and submit it to the U.S. Senate for debate next year.

The survey summary stated that “American voters are not willing to pay higher energy costs resulting from the approval of the Kyoto Treaty.” It also pointed out that “Given the generally positive mood of the country and confidence in the economy, it is not surprising that American voters are wary of ratifying a treaty that threatens their current standard of living” (PR Newswire, November 9, 1998).

A Second Opinion: EPA Cannot Regulate CO2

Last issue, we reported on the new legal analysis by the National Mining Association which showed that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have the authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. In another analysis from the Legal Opinion Letter (October 30, 1998), Gerald Yamada, Chief Counsel in the Washington, D.C. office of the law firm Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, confirms that view. He argues that if the U.S. were to sign and ratify the Kyoto Protocol legislation would be needed to implement it. The current Clean Air Act (CAA) does not authorize the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant for four reasons.

  • Section 821 of the CAA Amendments of 1990 gives “EPA authority to only monitor and collect data for CO2 emissions and make such data available to the public.” It does not allow it to impose emission limits.

  • The EPA may issue a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for any air pollutant that it believes “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Primary NAAQS are issued to protect public health and secondary NAAQS are issued to protect welfare. Issuing NAAQS for climate purposes would fall under the welfare definition and would be considered a secondary standard. “The EPA cannot regulate CO2 only because of its secondary effects,” says Yamada. “Since 1970 EPA has had ample opportunity to determine if CO2 may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. EPA does not have the scientific basis to do so.”

  • In the 1990 amendments to the CAA Congress directed the EPA to adopt separate regulatory schemes to control acid rain and to protect the ozone layer, “a marked change,” says Yamada, “from the pre-1990 CAA authority which delegated to EPA the authority to control air pollution emissions on a pollutant-by pollutant basis.” Implementing the Kyoto Protocol is much to complex to be handled on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. It would require a “comprehensive regulatory scheme.”

  • Yamada points out that the CAAs authorization for appropriations expired on September 30, 1998. The EPA can continue to administer programs through annual appropriations from Congress, however. Yamada warns that the EPA may “attempt to initiate a new program to reduce CO2 emissions by using its budget submission to obtain the requisite legal authority. EPA has used this ploy in the past to carry out programs not authorized by statute because EPAs annual budget submissions are difficult to decipher.”

Yamada concludes, “To regulate greenhouse gases, the Administration would have to propose a comprehensive program to implement the Kyoto Protocol as part of an Administration bill to reauthorize the CAA. Until a comprehensive program is enacted by Congress, EPA has no congressional authorization to control CO2 emissions.”

More on the Effects of CO2 on Plant Life; Mammoth Icebergs Are Not Unusual

by William Yeatman on November 10, 1998

in Science

More on the Effects of CO2 on Plant Life

It has been argued that the benefits to plant life of carbon dioxide may only be short term, that they are self-limiting. One of the hypotheses along these lines argues that dead plant tissue (litter) from plants grown in a carbon dioxide rich environment will decompose more slowly because there is less nitrogen in the plant tissue. Since the litter will have lower nitrogen content and decompose more slowly, “then decomposing organisms would have food of lower quality, and the transfer of organically bound nitrogen to the pools of mineral nitrogen available for plant growth could slow.” This leads to a “negative feedback on net plant productivity in the future.”

At a forum on Litter Quality and Decomposition under Elevated Atmospheric CO2 at a meeting held in Capri, Italy, plant physiologists, ecologists and soil scientists concluded that this hypothesis is not valid. “Most experiments, carried out in various ecosystems such as forests, agro-ecosystems, grasslands and a salt marsh, have reported little change in litter chemistry and no significant difference in decomposition rates under different CO2 concentrations.”

A possible positive feedback on plant productivity was also reported at the meeting. A slower initial decomposition may actually promote more complete long-term decomposition. High nitrogen content causes rapid initial decomposition and retards long-term decomposition. This can lead to “a more fertile habitat resulting from increased root litter in CO2 enriched grasslands,” for instance (Nature, November 5, 1998).

Mammoth Icebergs Are Not Unusual

In October the press reported that an iceberg the size of Delaware had broken free of Antarctica. The event, it was argued is another “possible indicator of global warming” (The Washington Post, October 16, 1998). As is usually the case with most stories touting global warming, this was an entirely natural occurrence. Very large icebergs break away from Antarctical all the time. The following was reported on the Junk Science webpage (www.junkscience.com).

“For a little perspective, we go to page 748 of the 1996 edition of The American Navigator, the prestigious Naval text updated continuously since 1799 (sometimes referred to as “The Bowditch.”)

“The text reads In 1854 and 1855, several ships in the South Atlantic reported a crescent-shaped iceberg with one horn 40 miles long, the other 60 miles long, and with an embayment 40 miles wide between the tips. In 1927 a berg 100 miles long, 100 miles wide, and 130 feet high above the water was reported. The largest iceberg ever reported was sighted in 1956 by the USS Glacier, a U. S. Navy icebreaker, about 150 miles west of Scott Island. This berg was 60 miles wide and 208 miles long, more than twice the size of Connecticut. Icebergs ten miles or more in length have been seen on many occasions in the Antarctic.

“Notice that this last iceberg was more than 4 times bigger than that little ice cube noted in the Washington Post story. And by some miracle, the world did not come to an end after the discovery of this giant. So last week’s iceberg was not so extraordinary — except that it was perhaps the first linked to the dreaded global warming.”

Global Warming Would be Good for U.S. Timber

by William Yeatman on November 10, 1998

in Blog

Global warming activists have been claiming for some time that a warming planet would have dire economic consequences. In particular, those industries that rely upon renewable natural resources will be hard hit once global warming reduces the availability of those resources.

In a new study published in the American Economic Review (September 1998) Brent Sohngen with the Department of Agriculture, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio State University, and Robert Mendelsohn with the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University find that the U.S. timber supplies will expand due to global warming, benefiting U.S. timber markets.

Previous studies had used static models to ascertain the effects of global warming on the timber industry. Sohngen and Mendelsohn, however, argue “the adjustment pathways for both ecosystems and economic systems are critical for measuring the welfare impacts of ecosystem change.” They use a dynamic model that takes account of how ecosystems and markets adjust to large-scale ecological change.

For example, the two regions most vulnerable to dieback are the North and the Rocky Mountain regions. As warming increases dieback “the low-productivity northern forests are replaced more quickly by loblolly pines” which are more suited to a warmer climate. Replacing the low-valued species with the high-valued species would be a net benefit to the timber industry.

 

The study attempts to measure the impacts of an effective doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the timber industry. They ran 36 different combinations of ecological-climate models, all of which found positive results: “across the different model combinations, they exhibited a wide range, from $1 billion to $33 billion of benefits.” They also submitted their results to a sensitivity test to see how the results may change under different assumptions. They found that under varying assumptions there are still positive net benefits to global warming.

Cooler Heads / Buenos Aires

by William Yeatman on November 9, 1998

in Kyoto Negotiations

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.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →