Blog

The Administrations Negotiating Strategy; Kyoto Protocol Can be Fixed; Kyoto is Doomed to Fail

by William Yeatman on March 12, 1998

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics

The Administrations Negotiating Strategy

On March 4, 1998, Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstat reassured the House Commerce Subcommittee that the U.S. was committed to getting “meaningful” developing country participation. Under questioning, however, Eizenstat admitted that the Clinton Administration will sign the Kyoto Protocol as it now stands even if developing countries do not agree to participate. When asked whether this takes away the U.S.s leverage to get developing country participation, Eizenstat replied that it will give negotiators greater leverage because it will show that the U.S. is serious about stopping global warming.

Kyoto Protocol Can be Fixed

Robert Stavins, professor of public policy and Chair of the Environment and Natural Resources Program at Harvards Kennedy School of Government, said at a briefing for Capitol Hill staff members that the Kyoto Protocol is flawed, but can become a good foundation for future greenhouse policies if it is fixed.

To fix the protocol it will be necessary, says Stavins, to include at least four developing countries: China, Brazil, India, and South Korea. Stavins argued that limiting the protocol to developed countries will cause energy intensive industries to relocate to developing countries, driving up future emission control costs for these countries.

Another remedy for the protocol is clearly defined and workable rules for an international emission trading system. Such a system, argues Stavins, will drastically cut abatement costs for the industrialized countries. He claims that the U.S. could cut its compliance costs by as much as 90 percent with the right system.

Stavins also recommends that rather than distribute emissions allowances free of charge to U.S. firms, the U.S. government should auction the allowances, using the proceeds to lower federal taxes on labor and investment (BNA Daily Environment Report, February 27, 1998).

Kyoto is Doomed to Fail

In an article in Foreign Affairs (March/April 1998), Richard N. Cooper of Harvard University argues that the Kyoto Protocol as it now stands is “bound to fail.” The Kyoto framework is a set of agreed-upon national objectives that allows each country to comply in its own way. This will be achieved through trading emission rights.

The problem, as Cooper sees it, is that it will be impossible to arrive at an agreed upon distribution of emission rights between rich and poor countries, precluding developing country participation which will be needed to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions.

There are three reasons, says Cooper, why collective action on climate change will be difficult. First, “Effective restraint must . . . involve all actual and prospective major emitters of greenhouse gases.” Second, “the rewards from restraints on greenhouse gases will come in the politically distant future, while the costs will be incurred in the political present.” Third, reducing greenhouse gas emissions “will involve changes in behavior by hundreds of millions if not billions of people, not merely the fiat of 180 or so governments.”

Other problems, of course, involve the high costs of compliance. If a family of four in the U.S. wishes to sustain its current level of emissions it could be required to pay $2,200, says Cooper. U.S. transfers to the rest of the world could be as high as $130 billion a year.

What then does Cooper recommend? “[M]ost of the reduction in the rich countries must come at or near the points of final demand, where the number of consumers is greatest,” says Cooper. “The reductions must be achieved by some combination of taxation, exhortation, publicity, and environmental education.”

Since it is necessary for governments to change the behavior of its citizens it may be far easier for the parties of the Framework Convention on Climate Change to agree to a common use of emission reduction instruments rather than to a national allocation of emission rights. The instrument that Cooper favors is a carbon emission tax.

Monitoring such a tax could fall under the authority of the International Monetary Fund, since all “important” countries, with the exception of Cuba and North Korea, “hold annual consultations with the IMF on their macroeconomic policies, including the overall level and composition of their tax revenues.”

The IMF would report to a monitoring agent of the treaty and these reports “could be supplemented by international inspection of major taxpayers such as electric utilities, and the tax agencies of participating countries.

Finally, Cooper points out that carbon taxes would yield $750 billion worldwide, some of which should go to the United Nations to pay for refugee programs, peacekeeping and other UN programs.

Cost-Free Treaty; Can Federal R&D Do the Job?;

by William Yeatman on March 12, 1998

in Blog

Cost-Free Treaty

The Clinton Administration has finally released its official economic analysis of the Kyoto Protocol. Testifying before the House Commerce Committee on March 4, 1998, Janet Yellen, chairman of the Presidents Council on Economic Advisors, stated that “our overall assessment is that the economic cost to the United States in aggregate and to typical households of attaining the targets and timetables specified in the Kyoto Protocol, will be modest.”

The administration estimates that the cost of achieving the Kyoto targets will range from $7 to $12 billion per year in 2008 to 2012, assuming that the administration is successful in including the developing nations in an emissions trading scheme.

The administration also estimates that the price of emissions will range from $14 to 23 per ton of carbon equivalent. This will lead to an increase in household energy prices of between 3 and 5 percent, fuel oil prices of about 5 to 9 percent, natural gas prices of 3 to 5 percent, gasoline prices of 3 to 4 percent and electricity prices of 3 to 4 percent.

The administration is claiming that electricity deregulation will save electricity consumers about $20 billion per year, offsetting the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The administration has not as of yet proposed an electricity restructuring bill. “It is becoming clear to me that the administration support for restructuring [is] a way to mask the costs of complying with this treaty,” responded Subcommittee Chairman Dan Schaefer (R-Colo). “I would like the benefits of restructuring to flow to the consumers.”

These price increases would raise the typical households yearly energy bill by between $70 and $110, according to the administrations numbers. Electricity restructuring, however, will save the average household about $90 per year.

The administration also argues that the protocol will not hurt the competitiveness of U.S. industry. Energy, according to Yellen, only constitutes 2.2 percent of the overall costs of U.S. industry. She also argues that there are already substantial energy price differences across countries and this has not cause U.S. firms to go over seas.

Finally, Yellen says that there will be no “significant aggregate employment effect” resulting from compliance with the protocol. Some jobs from energy intensive industries will be lost, but “a large number of jobs will be created in other sectors many of them high-tech jobs paying high wages.” She also claimed that, “The President is firmly committed to assisting any workers who are adversely affected during the transition to a climate-friendly economy.”

Can Federal R&D Do the Job?

President Clintons $6.3 billion plan to create technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has started a debate on the merits of federal research and development funding. Joseph Romm, deputy assistant secretary with the U.S. Energy Department argues that federal funding has led to improvements in energy conservation.

He points to better halogen lights and more-fuel-efficient cars as evidence. It is difficult though to “tease out what gains stem from government efforts, and what might have been done anyway.”

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for example, reviewed its Green Lights Program at the behest of the General Accounting Office (GAO). The GAO found that the voluntary program (2,300 companies pledged to upgrade lighting for 90 percent of their floor space over 5 years) fell far short of its goal replacing only 34 percent of lighting.

More importantly, EPA failed to account for other factors that may account for the changes. Electric utilities, for example, were already offering financial incentives to customers who upgraded lighting when Green Lights was instituted. Also, one-quarter of the firms in the program were makers and sellers of lighting, those most likely to already use state-of-the-art lighting.

The Clinton administration wants to approval for an additional $277 million for the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, a joint venture between the Department of Energy and the Big Three auto makers to develop a car that gets 80 miles per gallon. Many are skeptical that it will be successful given the prevalence of low, stable energy prices.

“In the 1970s, energy-efficiency improvements were almost all driven by higher prices,” said William OKeefe, executive vice president of the American Petroleum Institute. “People had incentives to substitute new technology for energy use,” he said. “Improvements have been slower in the 90s because the price of energy, particularly crude oil, has been very low” (Investors Business Daily, February 23, 1998).

The Kyoto Treaty Implications on National Defense

by William Yeatman on March 8, 1998

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics, Science

The Center for Security Policy has done extensive research on the issue of global warming and national defense.

You may choose to browse or search their site, or read the following article which directly discusses the Kyoto Treaty and National Defense.

Senator Inhofe Opposes Clintons Greenhouse Budget; Eizenstat Testifies Before Congress; Scientists Throw Cold Water on Kyoto Agr

by William Yeatman on February 28, 1998

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics

Senator Inhofe Opposes Clintons Greenhouse Budget

U.S. Senator James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) has made it clear he will oppose the Clinton Administrations $6.3 billion tax and subsidy proposal designed “to try to mold the behavior of U.S. businesses to conform with the global warming ideology.”

“The Presidents decision to sidestep the treaty ratification process and start unilaterally implementing the Global Warming agreement is wrong,” Inhofe said. “There should be no action taken by the Administration on this issue before the Senate deals directly with the treaty and its surrounding issues.”

Though President Clinton says that manmade global warming has arrived, Inhofe says that in Senate committee hearings “we determined just the opposite.”

“There are huge ambiguities and uncertainties,” according to Inhofe, “about what is happening in global climate change and what can and should be done. Once again, the President is not telling the whole truth about what the science is and what it means.”

Eizenstat Testifies Before Congress

Under Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat, chief negotiator of the Kyoto Protocol, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 12 that the Clinton Administration has “no intention, through the back door or anything else, without Senate confirmation, of trying to impose or take any steps to impose what would be binding restrictions on our companies, on our industry, on our business, on our agriculture, on our commerce, on our country, until and unless the Senate of the United States says so.”

When asked by Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Ne) what new laws and regulations will be required to bring the U.S. into compliance, however, Eizenstat said that with the exception of legislation needed to establish a domestic emission trading system, no new laws would be required. “I think it can all be done within existing authorities,” Eizenstat said.

Hagel also asked Eizenstat whether the U.S. military had received a “blanket-exemption” from emission reduction targets. After trying to dodge the question, Eizenstat finally answered: “. . . we took care of those concerns the military has, and that includes those actions we unilaterally initiate that have a multilateral component, as almost everything does.”

Apparently all military actions that do not have a multilateral component (read: UN approval) will be subject to the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol, then, will further subject the U.S. military to the whims of the United Nations.

The hearings were also supposed to include Janet Yellen, Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, to provide the Senate with an economic impact statement which they have promised since last summer. But Eizenstat said that the economic report of the president has delayed the economic analysis of the Kyoto Protocol. Eizenstat assured the committee that the report would show “that the costs to the economy are reasonable” and that “delaying action will only increase the costs.”

“I find it astounding,” said Hagel, “that our negotiators in Kyoto were basing their decisions on what obligations to commit the Unites States to but are unwilling to share those numbers with the U.S. Senate.”

Scientists Throw Cold Water on Kyoto Agreement

Although the Clinton Administration argues that the Kyoto Protocol is a major environmental achievement, many scientists are less optimistic. The agreement is a political victory for those who wish to centrally plan the worlds energy consumption. It will not, however, do much to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

According to Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University, “The best Kyoto can do is to produce a small decrease in the rate of increase.” Even so the Protocol still requires the U.S. to reduce emissions by about 40 percent by the year 2012.

Bert Bolin, outgoing Chairman of the IPCC, said, “If no further steps are taken during the next 10 years, CO2 will increase in the atmosphere during the first decade of the next century essentially as it has done during the past few decades.”

Most supporters of the treaty admit that it is only a first step. “[Y]ou have to walk before you can run,” said John Holdren a Harvard University professor of environmental policy. “If you want the energy system to look different in the next century you have to start now” (The Washington Post, February 13, 1998).

Unresolved Issues

An article in Resources (Winter 1998), a publication of Resources for the Future, discusses the shortcomings of the Kyoto Protocol.

Several things, according to the authors, are needed to close the “significant gaps” which remain in the treaty. First, clearly defined rules and institutions are needed to govern both international emission trading and joint implementation. Second, clear criteria for judging compliance must be established. Third, developing countries must agree to limit their emissions at some specific date. Fourth, specific short-term goals should be set for developed countries to make long-term reductions easier.

The authors argue “that the proposed target and timetable will impose significant costs on the United State and the global economy, even after accounting for new technology stimulated by domestic policies.”

Greenhouse Pork on Wheels

The U.S. government will contribute $20 million towards a $40 million collaberative effort with industry “to produce by 2004 buses, delivery trucks, trolleys, municipal fleets and other medium-sized vehicles that use half as much fuel and emit 30 percent less exhaust than todays vehicles.”

The administration has requested $10 million for the Department of Energy and $10 million for the Department of Transportation. Seven regional research groups will contribute the remaining $20 million. Companies involved in the regional research groups include Southern California Edison Co., FMC Corp., Intel Corp., Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. and AlliedSignal Inc. Regional transit authorities, environmental groups such as the National Resources Defense Council, and state agencies are also involved (Automotive News, February 9, 1998.

How Much Do You Cost?; Eco-Taxes Will Not Create Jobs; Drunk on Ethanol

by William Yeatman on February 28, 1998

in Blog

How Much Do You Cost?

William D. Nordhaus, economics professor at Yale University, and Joseph Boyer, a graduate student at Yale, have constructed an economic model of population growth to determine the economic cost that each person imposes on society in terms of environmental impact. The cost of each person in high-income countries is estimated at $100,000 while the costs of each person in low-income countries is $2,500.

Nordhaus, who delivered the paper at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on February 15, said, “We calculate three ways an extra person affects the economy he or she consumes natural resources, requires a share of capital resources such as buildings and computers, and generates carbon emissions that contribute to global warming. These are societal costs beyond what a parent pays to raise a child.”

The Yale model is the first to include global warming in estimating the costs of population growth. The researchers found that climate change costs are relatively small with only 1 to 4 percent of total costs being those that transcend national boundaries. Nordhaus warns, however, that, “Before the model is used to influence policy or to make value judgements . . . more research needs to be done on ways to estimate these costs” (M2 Presswire, February 16, 1998).

Eco-Taxes Will Not Create Jobs

Britains Treasury has countered claims that eco-taxes will create jobs. Treasury minister, Dawn Primarolo, told the Environmental Audit Committee, a parliamentary watchdog set up by the Labour party, that she is skeptical about the “double dividend” that eco-tax proponents are promising.

The Institute for Public Policy Research, a think tank with close ties to Labour, has argued that shifting taxes away from employment to pollution will help both the environment and employment (Financial Times (London), February 11, 1998).

Drunk on Ethanol

Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture, has announced that the United States Department of Agriculture “will contribute $10 million to an interagency Climate Change Technology Initiative, recognizing that agriculture can offer significant global warming solutions through cleaner-burning ethanol fuels, biomass projects that produce electricity by burning crops, and carbon sequestration, the use of plants to reduce the carbon blanket in our atmosphere thats heating up our earth and threatening world agriculture” (PR Newswire, February 11, 1998).

This appears to be another attempt by the administration to bribe yet another industry into supporting the Kyoto Protocol.

Labor and Management On The Same Side

Contract negotiations between the United Mine Workers and the Bituminous Coal Operators Association were finished early this year so the two groups could concentrate on fighting the Kyoto Protocol. “It was clearly in our mutual interest to reach agreement on the national contract so that we could focus on working together to protect the long-term viability of the industry,” said B.R. Brown, the chief BCOA negotiator.

UMW President Cecil Roberts said, “In my opinion, the Administration sold every American worker down the river, and its time for our union and the industry to begin looking at supporting candidates who will stand up not only for coal miners, but for every worker in this country” (The Sunday Gazette Mail, February 8, 1998).

Its All Chaos; Climate Change and Storminess; Sun Sheds Light on Climate Change

by William Yeatman on February 28, 1998

in Science

Its All Chaos

A serious challenge has emerged to the idea that manmade CO2 is causing of global warming. Climate modeler James Hansen and 42 other researchers have published a study in the Journal of Geophysical Research (November 27, 1997) that describes their inability to isolate specific causes of climate change from the chaotic climate.

The researchers ran three computer models of the climate with no forcings and compared the results to average annual temperatures. They then added forcings such as stratospheric aerosols, greenhouse gas buildup, ozone depletion, and others to see if the models would correspond more closely to observed conditions. The experiment failed for the troposphere where weather originates. The researchers found no correlation between the various forcings and temperature changes in the troposphere.

The authors note that, “Scientists and lay persons have a prediliction for deterministic explanations of climate variations. However, climate can vary chaotically, i.e., in the absence of any forcing. The slightest alteration of initial or boundary conditions changes the developing patterns, and thus next years weather is inherently unpredictable. This behavior results from the nonlinear fundamental equations governing the dynamics of such a system” (Electricity Daily, February 13, 1998).

Warming or Cooling?

In a study published in Science (February 13, 1998) researchers have found evidence in the ~6000-year-old coral from the Great Barrier Reef, Australia that the tropical ocean surface was 1 degree C warmer about 5350 years ago. This work suggests that earth may be in a long-term natural cooling trend.

According to Dr. Michael Gagan, the lead researcher, “The beginning of this interglacial period was warmer than now. Theres been a long-term cooling trend.” He also says that the natural cooling effect may be too weak to offset human-induced global warming (The Canberra Times, February 14, 1998).

Climate Change and Storminess

One of the oft-repeated scare stories about climate change is that warmer global temperatures will lead to more frequent and severe storms, including cyclones. Dr. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia points out, however, that climate models suggest that most warming will occur over the high latitudes in winter while the tropics will warm relatively less. Since it is the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles that fuels the jet stream and the jet stream that fuels winter storms, this would suggest that global warming would lead to fewer, less severe storms.

Several studies related to this phenomenon support Michaels contention. One paper, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research (1996), found no trend in changes in intense cyclones from 1899 to 1970. It did, however, find a significant increase from 1970 to 1991. But over the Pacific, for example, there was a link between stronger storms and lower temperatures.

Another study published in the Journal of Climate (1998) found that from 1990 on there was a statistically significant increase in the number of strong storms. The researchers also found that cold years have more storms that warm years.

Finally, a study published in the International Journal of Climatology (1998) found that the cost of weather damage had risen precipitously since 1954 but after correcting for inflation, population, and the number of storm events, the researchers found no trend in weather related insurance losses. See www.nhes.com for more details.

Sun Sheds Light on Climate Change

Two papers delivered at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) shed light on suns role in climate change.

Brian Tinsley of the University of Texas presented research that shows that the electromagnetic solar wind can freeze particles on the tops of high clouds by changing the electromagnetic charges of the particles causing the clouds to dissipate.

“If you dissipate, then you get more solar radiation to the earth,” Tinsley said. Tinsley believes that more than half of all warming in this century is due to changes in sunspots and solar flares.

Harry van Loon of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and Karen Labitzke of the Free University of Berlin told the AAAS meeting that they have found that temperature changes correspond to the 11-year sunspot cycle an effect that has been noted in the Northern Hemisphere. The correlation is strongest in summer and has been found in the Southern Hemisphere (Electricity Daily, February 19, 1998).

More on 1997 Temperatures; Deaths From Heat and Cold; Ice Flows and Ocean Currents

by William Yeatman on February 12, 1998

in Science

More on 1997 Temperatures

On January 8, federal climatologist Tom Karl announced that 1997 was the warmest year on record. The World Climate Report (WCR) disputes the claim. One of Karls graphics, for example, show that most of the warming over the last 50 years occurred in Siberia and northwestern North America, the two coldest air masses in the world. Little or no warming has been observed anywhere else. While this raises the global average temperature its not really global warming.

The WCR argues further that the Karls data is a “blend of global temperatures that mixes apples and oranges.” First, the land temperature was about the fifth highest on record. The ocean temperatures, which pushed global average temperatures to record highs, were taken from buoys that deployed to better measure El Nio. But better data on the above-the-ocean temperature is available from the Night Marine Air Temperature which is more consistent with both the land and satellite records. The WCR article can be found at www.nhes.com.

Deaths From Heat and Cold

Between 600 and 700 Americans die each year of excessive cold and 240 die per year from excessive heat in normal years. Those most at risk from temperature extremes are the homeless, poor, elderly, those with severe health problems, and those who lack proper nutrition, housing and clothing. During abnormal years, deaths from temperature extremes can increase to well over a thousand for each extreme (Scientific American, February 1998).

The lesson that should be taken from these statistics is not that we must prevent temperature extremes but rather we should improve societys wealth so as to avoid the adverse consequences. Those who have proper heating and air-conditioning, nutrition and shelter are much less likely to suffer from extreme temperatures. The Kyoto Protocol will reduce wealth, and therefore, increase mortality from temperature extremes.

Ice Flows and Ocean Currents

Much has been made of possible disruptions to ocean currents as a result of global warming. One fear is that melting ice sheets will change the density of sea water, disrupting deep ocean currents and cooling Europes climate. The British Antarctic Survey (BAS), however, disputes these claims. According to Dr. David Vaughn, a glaciologist with the BAS, global warming would have to continue at the same rate for the next 300 years before there would be any affect on Britains climate (The Evening Standard, January 29, 1998).

Etc.

For a good overview on the shortcomings of the surface temperature record see www.vision.net.au/~daly/surftemp.htm. The article discusses the urban heat island effect, site maintenance problems, geographical spread, ocean temperatures, etc.

Coal is Safe from Cuts; No Energy Taxes for Ireland

by William Yeatman on February 12, 1998

in Blog

Coal is Safe from Cuts

According to Bob Armstrong, assistant secretary for land and minerals management at the Department of Interior, the Kyoto Protocol will not require reductions in coal use. Speaking at a DOI conference on the future of coal, Armstrong said that reductions in greenhouse gases can be achieved through better technological advances in fuel efficiency and pollution abatement (Greenwire, January 22, 1998). Of course the federal government has already spent billions of dollars on clean coal technologies with little success.

No Energy Taxes for Ireland

The Irish Business and Employers’ Confederation (IBEC) will oppose energy taxes at the national and European Union level to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. IBEC argues that unilateral imposition of energy taxes would have “a serious detrimental effect on the competitiveness of European and Irish industry” (The Irish Times, January 28, 1998).

Vice President Al Gore Receives Enemy of the Taxpayer Award

by William Yeatman on February 10, 1998

in Blog

CONTACT: Peter Cleary, Communications Manager,  202-785-0266

Washington, D.C. Today, as the Senate holds its hearing on the implications of the Kyoto protocol, Americans for Tax Reform issued a special “Enemy of the Taxpayer Award” to the Vice President of the United States, Al Gore.

The Vice Presidents selection for this dubious distinction was a direct result of the role he played in the global climate conference in Kyoto, Japan. Negotiations stalled in Kyoto because other nations were all too happy to impose immense energy costs on the United States, but were not willing to wreak the same havoc on their own economies. At this point Gore rushed to Japan to tell the U.S. negotiators to be more flexible. As a result these negotiators caved on the following issues:

NO to universal application of the treaty. Only developed countries are required to follow the stringent protocol of the treaty. Major emerging economies including Mexico, China, India and Brazil will not be required to participate in solving this global problem despite knowledge that these countries will soon outpace developed countries in production of carbon dioxide.

NO to concerns about the costs of the treaty. Under this treaty the U.S. will be required to reduce carbon emissions to seven percent below 1990 levels. According to an internal EPA memo, this will require massive increases in energy taxes including a fifty cent gas tax, a BTU tax and other consumption based taxes.

As a result of the required dramatic increases in energy taxes, ratification would lead to entire industries fleeing the U.S. for destinations that are not required to participate in emissions reductions required by this treaty. Together, this combination of disastrous effects on our economy would ensure an economic depression comparable to, if not worse than, the Great Depression of the 1930s. Americans for Tax Reform views the role the Vice President played in the negotiation process of this disastrous treaty as tantamount to an act of economic treason against the United States.

Americans for Tax Reform is a non-profit, non-partisan coalition of over 70,000 taxpayers and taxpayer advocacy groups committed to opposing tax increases at the state and federal level.

Clintons Multi-billion Dollar Plan; Senator Helms Enters the Fray; Foreign Policy Experts Oppose Kyoto Protocol; “Political” Sci

by William Yeatman on February 3, 1998

in Politics

Clintons Multi-billion Dollar Plan

On January 30, the Clinton administration announced a $6.3 billion emissions reduction plan. The budget for fiscal year 1999 will include $3.6 billion in tax credits and $2.7 billion in new research and development funding over the next five years. The plan will focus on four areas: buildings, industry, transportation, and electricity.

The package will include tax credits worth $100 million for rooftop solar systems. Homebuilders can receive tax credits for 15 percent of the cost of the systems with a maximum credit of $2,000 for photovoltaic systems and $1,000 for solar water heating systems.

To encourage industry support, nine hundred million dollars worth of tax credits will be made available for business firms who install combined heat and power systems. The tax credit will be ten percent of the cost of investment.

Energy-efficient buildings will receive a tax credit worth twenty percent of the investment subject to a cap and purchasers of new energy efficient homes will receive a tax credit equal to 1 percent of the purchase price up to a maximum credit of $2,000.

The Clinton administration will also propose a tax credit for fuel-efficient vehicles worth $700 million. Vehicles with triple the base fuel economy standard would be eligible for a tax credit worth $4,000 per vehicle. A proposal to equalize tax treatment of parking and transit and vanpool benefits will cost $100 million.

Finally, the administration will propose tax credits for electricity produced from wind and biomass worth $200 million (BNA Daily Environment Report, February 2, 1998).

Senator Helms Enters the Fray

In a letter to President Clinton, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-NC) accused the President of “unwisely and unnecessarily” delaying Senate consideration of several international treaties. Helms said that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will not consider the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty until the President submits the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for ratification.

“We owe it to the American people to let them know sooner rather than later, whether they will be subject to the terms of this treaty,” Helms wrote. A Clinton spokesperson responded that “the administration has no intention of submitting the Kyoto Protocol until there is meaningful participation from developing countries” (Greenwire, January 23, 1998).

Foreign Policy Experts Oppose Kyoto Protocol

Members of the Committee to Preserve American Security and Sovereignty (COMPASS) wrote a letter to President Clinton opposing the Kyoto Protocol. The letter reads in part, “lessons we have learned from (past) negotiations in arms control, trade and other areas . . . have been ignored or forgotten in the Kyoto process.” The letter argues that the Protocol “threatens to limit the exercise of American military power.” Excerpts of the letter appeared in a full page ad in the Washington Times on January 27, 1998.

“Political” Scientist Discusses Kyoto

Former chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Bert Bolin recently offered his assessment of the Kyoto Protocol in Science (January 16, 1998). Bolin estimates that under the Kyoto Protocol atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will rise by approximately 29 parts per million by volume (ppmv). “It therefore seems likely,” writes Bolin, “that another international effort will be required well before 2010 to consider whether further measures are warranted.”

Bolin also discusses the problem of how to count carbon sinks in determining compliance. Though the protocol asks the IPCC to resolve this issue Bolin argues that, “It is . . . not clear how to devise satisfactory methods to achieve what is envisaged in the protocol.”

Bolin concludes that, “The Kyoto conference did not achieve much with regard to limiting the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” However, he sees the conference as a good first step towards the ultimate objective, “to achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” Bolin did not, however, define “dangerous interference.”

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →