Australian Prime Minister John Howard was returned to office with an increased majority in the countrys general election on October 9. The result came after a campaign where early polls suggested a likely victory for Labor Party leader Mark Latham.
The result ensures that Australia will continue to opt out of the Kyoto Protocol. Howard has been a strong personal critic of the measure, believing it to be damaging to Australias economic prosperity.
Jeff Holmstead, assistant administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys Office of Air and Radiation, gave a boost to those who stress the inevitability of carbon restrictions at a conference in Lexington, Ky., on October 12. According to Greenwire (Oct. 13), he said, Unless there’s some changes in the way the scientific community is going, there in some point in the future will be a carbon-constrained world.
Greenwire went on, Asked later to expound on his comments, Holmstead said he was providing an observation on the decisions that U.S. industries must face in the future. With natural gas prices trending upward, Holmstead said the nation will have to maintain reliance on coal as a primary fuel. As such, new coal-fired plants will likely face some constraints on GHG emissions over their 50- to 75-year lifespans, he said.
Holmstead noted that uncertainty about the government’s direction on GHGs has got to be frustrating for business people who are trying to anticipate how their status will change in the future.
In response, CEI Senior Fellow Iain Murray issued the following statement:
On the same day Vice President Cheney reminded us of the jobs saved by the Administration’s brave stance in rejecting artificial restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, another administration official yesterday pulled the rug from under his feet by suggesting such restrictions are inevitable.
Those remarks by Jeff Holmstead are a slap in the face for coal miners and auto workers across the nation. Greenhouse gas restrictions will mean seniors pay more for their heat in the winter, families pay more for transportation, and business owners pay more in energy costs. Not only that, but they will do virtually nothing to abate a rise in temperature which may prove beneficial anyway.
Rather than waving a white flag to the energy suppression lobby (whose former standard bearer was Enron, we should not forget), Holmstead should have focused on ways to strengthen the world economy. That way, if global warming does prove to be a problem, we will have little to worry about. We’ve seen how resilient America has been to four hurricanes this year. We should be trying to make the rest of the world as strong as America rather than weakening America by engaging in futile attempts to change the weather.
Holmstead’s remarks are simply incompatible with the correct approach the current Administration has taken on this issue. The American economy doesn’t need the poison pill he’s prescribed. For the sake of American jobs, human wealth and global prosperity, Holmstead should be fired. He can no doubt look forward to a high-paying job with one of the companies that hopes to profit from impoverishing Americans through energy rationing.
Dr Kevin Anderson and Richard Starkey are developing a system called Domestic Tradable Quotas (DTQs). Under this system, every
David Fleming, credited with coming up with the idea, explicitly tied the idea to the hugely unpopular rationing of commodities during and after the Second World War. He said, When I was a child, in the years after the war, I didnt like sweets [candy] and sold my sweet ration to other children. I suppose, in a sense, Ive been thinking about DTQs all my life.
Dr Anderson said, DTQs are a viable approach to carbon taxes. As people make their choices the system will help drive the market to lower carbon approaches. Weve all seen how protests can bring the country to a halt if the price of petrol increases by just a few pence. DTQs could nurture much-needed public supportits all about giving people choices.
The idea has been proposed to Parliament by means of a ten-minute rule bill (which means it stands little chance of becoming law). A second reading in the House of Commons is scheduled for this month. (Innovations Report, Sept. 21)
See also our article on page 5 in the paper edition of EU Reporter for the week of 27-30 September entitled: “Orwellian Energy Saving Plan May Not Be Doomed In The Long Term”. To download the PDF version click here.
Acting contrary to the advice of the countrys top scientific and economic advisers, Russian President Vladimir Putins cabinet agreed in principle on September 29 to send the Kyoto Protocol to
The decision was not accompanied by either a statement from the President in support of the protocol or any other explanation of why the decision has been taken. Economy Minister German Gref, a supporter of the protocol, commented that implementing the protocol would involve hard work for the country and that it could be detrimental if the wrong method of implementation were chosen (Moscow Times, Sept. 27).
Chief Economic Adviser Andrei Illarionov said that the move was political in nature, Its a political decision. Its a forced decision, and its not a decision we are making with pleasure. At a press conference in Washington, D. C. on October 1, he called the Kyoto Protocol an assault on economic growth, the environment, public safety, science, and human civilization itself, but said that he was not able to comment on the political nature of the decision.
Several commentators suggested that the move was a quid pro quo to the European Union in exchange for Russian entry to the World Trade Organization and visa-free travel for Russian citizens across the European Union (Independent, Oct. 1). It has also been speculated that the decision to ratify is part of Putins charm offensive to lessen European criticism of his Chechen policies.
Although Russian ratification is now likely, Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov, believed to be an ally of Illarionov on the issue, explained that he expected heated debate on the issue in the Duma. Outlining the considerations he thought the Duma would take into account, Konstantin Kosachev, head of the foreign affairs committee, told Interfax news agency, The economic factor would have a decisive role, environmental considerations would come second, and political expediency would matter less (Sept. 30).
Moreover, the second chamber of parliament, the Russian Federation Council, seems hostile to the proposal. The head of the economic policy committee of the Council, Oganes Oganian, told Interfax (Oct. 1), There are a lot of representatives of various business organizations, including aluminum, oil and energy ones, among the senators. These people are opposed to ratifying the document because these organizations will have to fork out for the environment.
Kosachev initially suggested that the ratification debate would not take place until December, but there are indications that a vote is planned this month. Sergei Vasilyev, head of the National Carbon Union, however, told Greenwire (Oct. 1) that, The Duma could slow down the process in order to win concessions from other participant countries. He went on, It would mean that until the Europeans give valid and reliable guarantees to
The Bush Administrations reaction to the decision was relaxed. Harlan Watson, the administrations chief climate change negotiator, told The Wall Street Journal (Oct. 1), It was up to
If the Duma approves ratification, the Kyoto Protocol will come into effect ninety days after official notification of Russian ratification is received by the UNFCCC secretariat. This will be too late for the tenth Conference of the Parties, scheduled for mid-December in
On September 15, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted out an appropriations bill that included a provision to exempt the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from following the requirements of the Federal Data Quality Act (FDQA). After the provision came to light and attracted intense criticism, Senator Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), the subcommittee chairman in charge of the appropriations bill for the Commerce, Justice and State Departments (S. 2809), on September 23 announced that he would remove it from the bill (Greenwire, Sept. 24).
The FDQA is meant to prohibit federal agencies from using or disseminating information that does not meet minimal standards of objectivity, quality, and utility. NOAA is one of the principal scientific agencies in the federal government and is in charge of most climate research.
The clause was reportedly inserted by Senator Fritz Hollings (D-S. C.), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee. It reads, Provided further, That section 515 of Public Law 106-554 and any regulations and guidelines promulgated under such authority shall not apply on or after the date of enactment to research and data collection, or information analysis conducted by or for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
In a letter to the Times of
The letter said, Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition made major speeches last week on climate change and the policies that are supposedly required to deal with it (reports, September 14 and 15). It appears that, in this area, Tony Blair and Michael Howard are of one mind. They hold the same alarmist view of the world, and call for much the same radical and costly programme of action.
Both leaders assert that prospective climate change, arising from human activity, clearly poses a grave and imminent threat to the world. Such statements give too much credence to some current sombre assessments and dark scenarios, and pay no heed to the great uncertainties, which still prevail in relation to the causes and consequences of climate change. There are no solid grounds for assuming, as Messrs Blair and Howard do, that global warming demands immediate and far-reaching action.
The actions that they call for chiefly comprise a range of higher targeted subsidies, and of stricter controls and regulations, to limit CO2 emissions. These measures would raise costs for enterprises and households, both directly as consumers and as taxpayers. They would make all of us significantly and increasingly worse off. There are no worthwhile gains to set against these costs. It is absurd to argue, as the Prime Minister did in his speech (and Howard took a similar line), that such policies can unleash a new and benign commercial force. The new opportunities created for high-cost ventures come as the direct result of suppressing opportunities for their lower-cost rivals: this is already happening in power generation.
It is not only the Prime Minister and Mr. Howard who are advancing questionable economic arguments. We consider that the treatment of economic issues by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not up to the mark. It is time for finance and economics ministries everywhere, including HM Treasury, to wake up to this situation and take action.
The letter was also signed by Wilfred Beckerman (Emeritus Fellow, Balliol College, Oxford), Ian Byatt (Director-General of Water Services, 1989-2000), David Henderson (Visiting Professor, Westminster Business School), Julian Morris (Executive Director, International Policy Network), Alan Peacock (David Hume Institute, Edinburgh), and Professor Colin Robinson (Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Surrey).
After two days of hearings, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on September 24 unanimously approved its plan to require automakers to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new cars and trucks sold in the State starting in 2009. The regulations, which implement Assembly Bill 1493, signed into law by then-Gov. Gray
The regulation sets fleet average standards measured in grams per mile of carbon dioxide (CO2)-equivalent emissions. For passenger cars and light trucks, each automaker must ensure that the average emissions of the vehicles it sells in
AB 1493 requires CARB to achieve maximum feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions from new vehicles. As
CARB claims that its rule is cost-effective, arguing that fuel savings from the technologies automakers will deploy to meet the GHG standards will more than outweigh any increase in vehicle purchase price. But this is a tacit confession that the rule is in fact fuel economy regulation by another name.
Sierra Research, Inc., in a report written on behalf of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, finds multiple problems with CARBs cost-effectiveness calculation. CARB inflated vehicle costs in the 2009 baseline (no regulation) case by unrealistically assuming universal adoption of expensive new technologies such as 5- and 6-speed automatic transmissions. CARB used an unrealistically low markup factor to estimate how much retailers would charge for cars incorporating GHG-reducing technologies.
In addition, CARB knocked 30 percent off the cost estimates of key technologies based on nothing more than its alleged experience and the potential for unforeseen innovations. CARB forgot to take into account
The net effect of such errors, according to Sierra Research, is that, The actual cost of the proposed standards will exceed an optimistic estimate of the present value of the fuel savings for an average
Copies of the Sierra Research report may be obtained by calling (916) 444-6666. CEIs comments on the final rule may be found at http://www.cei.org/pdf/4218.pdf.
The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Prediction, the influential British alarmist body, has proposed reintroducing rationing to the
Dr Kevin Anderson and Richard Starkey are developing a system called Domestic Tradable Quotas or DTQs. Under this system, every British citizen would have a ration of carbon emissions, which could be traded in a market.
David Fleming, credited with coming up with the idea, explicitly tied the idea to the hugely unpopular rationing of commodities during and after the Second World War. He said, When I was a child, in the years after the war, I didnt like sweets [candy] and sold my sweet ration to other children. I suppose, in a sense, Ive been thinking about DTQs all my life.
Dr Anderson said, DTQs are a viable approach to carbon taxes. As people make their choices, the system will help drive the market to lower carbon approaches. Weve all seen how protests can bring the country to a halt if the price of petrol increases by just a few pence. DTQs could nurture much-needed public support its all about giving people choices.
The idea has been proposed to Parliament by means of a ten-minute rule bill (which means it stands little chance of becoming law). A second reading in the House of Commons is scheduled for this month. (Innovations Report, Sept. 21)
Sentiment regarding “the environment” doesn’t seem to be a major factor in voters’ minds as they weigh the decision whether to cast their ballots for President Bush or for John Kerry. But for those of you still undecided about which candidate will do a better job on Iraq, homeland security, and other issues, you may also want to factor in the candidates’ records and attitudes on environmental issues. Bush has been roundly criticized on environmental issues since he took office. But this criticism has largely come from left-leaning environmental activists and their supporters in academia the vast majority of whom didn’t vote for Bush in 2000 and, moreover, probably wouldn’t vote for a Republican under any circumstance. When Bush proposed more stringent regulations for arsenic in drinking water something the two-term Clinton administration never got around to doing the environmental community ran a television ad campaign implying that the president was actually going to permit more arsenic in drinking water. “May I please have some more arsenic in my water, Mommy,” asked a child in one of the commercials. John Kerry, in a recent interview with Grist Magazine, also characterized the more stringent arsenic rules as part of an “unbelievable series of backward measures.” So I pay no attention to what so-called environmentalists say about Bush. Their attacks usually don’t present the facts fairly and are designed to politicize issues and polarize voters. The most notable environmental decision Bush has made so far was his decision to pull the U.S. out of the economic dance-of-death known as the Kyoto protocol, the international treaty on global warming. The president and Kerry actually agree on this issue, although Kerry told Grist that he would like to re-open the treaty’s negotiating process to fix the treaty’s flaws. The difference between the candidates is that Bush has rightly raised questions about the “science” underlying global warming hysteria and is not at all interested in an international treaty, whereas Kerry would embrace a treaty an agreement that likely would significantly hamper the U.S. economy if he could do so without paying a heavy political price. Bush also gets credit for clamping down on the perpetual regulation machine known as the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA spent the Clinton administration years issuing the most expensive environmental regulations ever air quality standards costing as much as $100 billion per year that will produce no tangible health or environmental benefits and scaring the public about chemicals in the environment. But the EPA’s rulemaking process under Bush has been significantly slowed because the administration’s own environmental initiatives on air pollution and mercury from power plants, for example, are opposed by environmentalists. The resulting gridlock has prevented the issuance of costly, junk science-based rules that produce few-to-no benefits to the public. Short of dismantling the EPA in favor of a more rational approach to the environment the preferred solution the president has done the next best thing by bollixing up the EPA rulemaking process. I don’t think he planned it that way, but I won’t argue with that success. As to Kerry, you really only need to know three things about him to see what he’d do on the environment. First, Kerry has a 96-percent lifetime voting record on environmental issues as determined by the League of Conservation Voters. That means that Kerry rubber-stamps every piece of environmental legislation that comes down the pike, regardless of its merits or costs. Second, in a Kerry administration, I suspect that the decision-making on the environment would be handed over to his wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, much the same way the health care issue was handed to Hillary Clinton during the early part of the Clinton administration. The environment is a hot-button issue for Teresa, and I doubt he’d turn down the billionaire who made his presidential campaign possible. What that probably means is that environmental extremists will once again have free reign over the EPA. As head of the $1.2 billion Heinz Foundation, Teresa has given more than $6 million to the Tides Foundation and Tides Center which, in turn, funds groups like Greenpeace, Environmental Working Group, Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club and millions more to other environmental groups. I would expect Teresa to hand these groups the keys to the EPA, as well. Finally, when asked by Grist Magazine whether his Harley-Davidson motorcycle was an environmental “vice” because motorcycle tailpipe emissions are “worse than cars,” Kerry responded, “I haven’t heard that about my Harley. But if it’s a vice, it’s one I don’t think I can quit. Sorry.” Meanwhile, Kerry wants us to take the bus to reduce air pollution. After all, the more of us that do opt for mass transit, the less guilty he can feel about tooling around on his Harley, Teresa’s gas-guzzling luxury yacht and her Gulfstream V jet. It may seem unfortunate that the choices on the environment boil down to regulatory gridlock versus a mindless regulatory frenzy, but that is the reality. I know which I prefer. Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of “Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams” (Cato Institute, 2001).
On March 29, 2001, just over two months into his new administration, President Bush announced that the United States would not comply with the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which would have led to energy rationing due to its required cuts in carbon emissions, the inescapable byproduct of energy generation. The President made clear his opposition to the unreasonable demands the Kyoto Protocol places on the United States. We will not do anything that harms our economy, he said then.
However, over three years later, the Clinton-era signature remains on this potentially very harmful document. The Bush Administration should move to unsign it.
The continued presence of Americas signature on the Kyoto treaty sends the wrong signal. Sensing ambiguity in the U.S. position, European offi cials continue to press Kyotos case, and are placing immense diplomatic pressure on Russia to ratify, which would bring the Protocol into legal effect, since it would push Kyoto over the necessary threshold of 55 percent of the worlds greenhouse gas emissions. This carries considerable risks.
When in Kyoto, do as in Rome
In May 2002, the Bush Administration announced it would unsignthat is, rescind the American signature fromthe Treaty of Rome establishing an International Criminal Court, which would have exposed American military personnel to politically motivated charges of war crimes (potentially brought by such humanitarian stalwarts as the governments of Cuba, Iran, and Syria). This begs the question: If the United States does not intend to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, why does it refuse to rescind its 1998 signature of it? Unsigning the Treaty of Rome belies the Bush Administrations claim that the United States, as a nonratifying signatory, faces no consequences from the Kyoto Protocol.
The Bush Administration has not stated that the U.S. will comply with Kyotoyet the failure to rescind our signature sends that same message to other countries negotiators.
Unsigning the Rome Treaty but not the Kyoto Protocol suggests that the U.S. intends to adopt Kyoto. This has emboldened the European Union (EU) to lobby Russia to seek the best deal it can while eventual ratifi cation by a future U.S. Senate remains a possibility. Most major EU countries, recognizing that Russia holds all the cards right now, are willing to give Russia major concessionsand the possibility of American ratifi cation places the pressure on Russia to ratify Kyoto fi rst.
Invitation to Litigation
Once it is in effect, other countries will likely use Kyoto to beat up on the U.S.a signatoryat various international fora, even without Senate ratifi cation. Recent litigation by state attorneys general against U.S. power generators and the Administration itself hint at future lawsuits: At least three law review articles have set forth how Third World plaintiffs can use the national signature on the protocol to sue, under the Alien Tort Claims Act and other statutes, over costs allegedly imposed on them by climatechange. The EU is threatening the use of the World Trade Organizations Shrimp-Turtle precedent to make the case that our failure to match EU energy taxes is either an impermissible advantage (eco-dumping) or an unfair trade barrier. The U.S. signature on the protocol invites such action.
Status Quo Makes No Sense
The 1972 Vienna Convention on Conventions (Title 18) delineates treaty interpretation, dealing specifically with the issue of a non-ratifying signatory state: a State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty, until and unless it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty, or it has expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty. This is restated by the Law of Foreign Relations of the United States ( 312 of the Restatement 3d). This is expressly why President Bush unsigned the Treaty of Rome.
That requirement is not satisfi ed by verbally disavowing a treaty, while at the same time maintaining ones signature and continuing to send delegations to ongoing negotiations. The Vienna Conventions withdrawal requirement is achieved only by filing an instrument rescinding the signature with the same body to which the signature was communicated.
The Solution
Unsigning the Kyoto Protocol would be consistent with the Presidents correct approach to the Treaty of Rome and reiterate his Administrations willingness to defend American sovereignty and the Constitution against international pressure.
Christopher C. Horner (chornerc@cei.org) is a Senior Fellow at CEI and Counsel to the Cooler Heads Coalition. Iain Murray (imurray@cei.org) is a Senior Fellow at CEI, where he specializes in the debate over climate change and the use and abuse of science in the political process.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org