Moscow Conference Casts Doubt over Kyoto's Future; Schwarzenegger's Campaign Cheers Environmentalists
October 20, 2003
Source
Cooler Heads Coalition
Moscow Conference Casts Doubt over Kyoto's Future
The United Nations' World Climate Change Conference, which concluded in Moscow on October 3, ended without reaching a consensus on the issue. A senior economic adviser to President Putin stated that he found the answers from the scientific organizers to his detailed questions over climate change science (which for the most part simply quoted from the IPCC's Third Assessment Report issued two years ago) were unconvincing. When the debate was opened up to the floor on the final day, conference chairman Bert Bolin was forced to admit that nine out of 10 questions from the floor questioned the "consensus" on anthropogenic climate change.
After the conference, Russian advisers were at pains to stress that their skepticism towards Kyoto was based on genuine misgivings over the treaty's scientific basis and the effects of climate change on Russia rather than simply a negotiating tactic to extract more concessions from the west. An unnamed source told Reuters Oct. 14, "I do not know how clearly what [the senior adviser] said was translated, but judging by the commentaries that appeared the words were interpreted as brinkmanship.... This is not a game, it is a very serious question...about the theory that (the protocol) is based on, and a number of other questions such as the economic issue."
At time of writing, there has been little official reaction to the conference's outcome from Kyoto-supporting governments or environmental lobby groups. Annie Petsonk of Environmental Defense, who attended the conference, alleged to Greenwire (Oct. 15) that, "Scientists and economists who spoke in favor of Kyoto often found their microphones cut off and were not allowed to speak until the last day of the conference."
However, sources suggest that high-level officials preparing for the UNFCC's ninth Conference of the Parties in Milan in December are bowing to the inevitable. BNA's Daily Environment Report reported (Oct. 10) that, "For the first time since its drafting, official discussions will include the possibility of combating climate change without the Kyoto Protocol, although talks will focus more on other issues that include the use and transfer of new technologies, capacity building in developing countries, and sustainable development."
Schwarzenegger's Campaign Cheers Environmentalists
According to Greenwire (Oct. 15), California Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger's "policy agenda reads like an environmentalist's wish list." He has set a target of reducing "air pollution by up to 50 percent, through incentives for clean fuel usage, and build hydrogen car fueling stations along California highways. The governor-elect also supports the state's renewable portfolio standard (RPS), which would require that 20 percent of the state's power come from solar and wind power by 2017."
In addition, he has promised to defend the state's greenhouse gas legislation against legal challenges, saying, "California's landmark legislation to cut greenhouse gases is now law, and I will work to implement it and to win the expected challenges in court along the way."
Schwarzenegger's campaign was not wholly attractive to the environmental lobby, which reacted badly to his suggestion that he might want to close down the state's environmental protection agency as part of his campaign against government bureaucracy. However, Terry Tamminen, an unpaid adviser to Schwarzenegger on environmental issues, and executive director of Environment Now, told Greenwire that he hoped the new Governor would be able to work more closely with the White House than Gov. Davis did on issues like global warming and air pollution, saying, "As a Republican governor, Arnold is much more likely to be able to work with the Bush administration to resolve differences.... California could persuade the federal government to take another look at those policies."
Deal on Energy Bill "Close"
Progress on the energy bill conference stalled over recent weeks, but Republican conference leaders are now confident they are 'close' to a deal on the outstanding disagreements over electricity, tax, and MTBE issues. Those disagreements are over whether merchant power generators should have to pay for transmission upgrades and issues surrounding liability protection for and a federal ban on the fuel additive MTBE. Sources suggest that one of the issues (it is not known which one) has been sent to the offices of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R.-Ill.) to try to reach some resolution. The package of tax incentives has not been finished, either. The conferees have agree to drop the Senate' bill's three climate titles and the 10% renewable porfolio standard for electric utilities. There is confusion over whether the provisions for oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and for an inventory of oil and gas resources in the outer continental shelf have been dropped. Sen. Joseph Liebermen (D.-Conn.) had issued a press release congratulating Republican conference leaders for removing the provisions, but retracted his statement when no announcement was forthcoming.
Collusion Charges "Absurd"
Following an allegation by the Attorneys General of Connecticut and Maine that the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition, had colluded with administration officials to sue the Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Data Quality Act over its dissemination of the junk-science based Climate Action Report 2002, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D.-Conn.) has written to the White House asking officials to release to him any documents relating to the alleged collusion.
CEI rejected the charge as preposterous. "This started as a suit against a Clinton administration global warming report," CEI President Fred L. Smith, Jr. said in a press release. "The accusations of collusion are absurd and just an attempt to divert attention from the real issue-that junk science is being used as the basis for climate change reports, which could lead to policies that cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars with little, if any, benefit."
CEI's legal action began against the Climate Action Report's predecessor, the National Assessment on Climate Change, in October 2000.
Get the report