Politics

Several observers have noted the hypocrisy of tens of thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, and environmental activists traveling from all parts of the globe to the World Summit on Sustainable Development, where they will huff and puff about the evils of emitting carbon dioxide. In response, summiteers have come up with a plan to offset the carbon emissions that will result from the conference.

Conference organizers claim that the 290,000 tons (by some estimates) of carbon dioxide that will be produced as a result of the conference can be offset through some sort of compensation fund. Mary Metcalfe, of the Department for Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Land Affairs of South Africas Gauteng Province, announced, “We are measuring the carbon dioxide emissions of the summit. These emissions will be offset through investments in carbon reducing sustainable projects across South Africa. I urge all delegates to take responsibility for their own CO₂ emissions. It is one small step towards a sustainable climate and will be an important contribution to innovative alternate energy projects in South Africa.”

According to Metcalfe, “Companies, individuals, and governments can sponsor this offset by making donations to a dedicated trust fund and, in so doing on this world stage, make one of the most important commitments in modern history to a sustainable future. There is a web site where delegates can calculate how much CO₂ their trip will generate and offset it. Ten dollars will offset one metric tonne of CO₂ emitted by the summit” (Electricity Daily, August 20, 2002). The summit begins in Johannesburg on August 26 and ends on September 4.

State AGs Bash Bush with Climate Action Report

Attorneys General from eleven States sent a letter to President George W. Bush on July 17 calling on him to propose mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. They based their case on the administrations Climate Action Report 2002, which was sent to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in May.

The letter details a number of possible impacts of global warming for which there is little or no scientific evidence, but which are mentioned in Climate Action Report 2002. The chapter in that report on the impacts of climate change was based on the scientifically-discredited National Assessment, which was prepared by the Clinton Administration but later disavowed by the Bush Administration.

The Attorneys General note that several States have already passed legislation to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, but add that “state-by-state action is not our preferred option.” Instead, they favor a federal cap-and-trade program. The letter also states that they are considering litigation to force federal action. Attorneys General from California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Maine, Alaska, and Vermont signed the letter.

Petitions Filed with Federal Agencies Based on Climate Action Report

The Bluewater Network, the environmental pressure group which wrote the bill passed by the California legislature to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from new vehicles, has filed petitions with at least four federal agencies demanding that they begin to prepare for the impacts of climate change predicted by the administrations Climate Action Report 2002. Petitions dated June 27 were filed with the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Now that serious adverse impacts of global warming have been acknowledged officially by the administration, the Bluewater Network argues that these agencies are required by law to take these impacts into account in their resource protection policies and planning.

The petition to the Forest Service, for example, asks the service to, “Initiate a no tree-cut policy for all national forests, to sequester carbon, retain ground and forest moisture, and protect wildlife and ecosystems that are dependent on these resources.” The Network is apparently unaware that a nearly-no-cut policy has been in effect since the early 1990s, which has led to catastrophic fires over tens of millions of acres in 2000 and 2002.

It should be mentioned that the Bluewater Network is a project of the Earth Island Institute. Gar Smith, editor of the Earth Island Institutes Journal, published a long commentary on September 13, 2001, in which he explained that the real reasons for the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were “World Trade and U.S. Militarism.”

He also claimed that, “If we were to redirect our economy to operate on clean renewable energy…we would not only be on the path to mitigating climate change, we would also be on the path to eliminating one of the major causes of terrorism.”

Davis Signs CO₂ Bill

As anticipated, California Governor Gray Davis signed “ground breaking legislation” on July 22 to cut carbon dioxide emissions. Davis wrote in and op-ed, “The federal government and Congress, by failing to ratify the Kyoto treaty on global warming, have missed their opportunity to do the right thing. So it is left to California, the nations most populous state and the worlds fifth largest economy, to take the lead” (Washington Post, July 22, 2002).

The law will require the California Air Resources Board to design policies to “achieve a maximum feasible reduction of greenhouse gases” from cars and trucks by 2005. Davis noted that the “vigorous lobbying campaign by automakers was successful in Congress and nearly stalled Californias carbon emission law, but common sense prevailed.”

Eron Shosteck, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, told the Washington Post (July 22, 2002) that the law will directly harm consumers. “You cant make one car for California and another car for Washington, D.C.,” he said. “California motorists are going to be extremely angry when they find they are going to lose access to SUVs, trucks and minivans.” Shosteck also noted that, “there are already 50 models that get more than 30 miles per gallon,” and “consumers dont want them. High mileage cars sit on dealer lots and dont sell.”

New York Assemblyman Thomas DiNapoli (D) immediately announced that he plans to introduce legislation that would direct New York to adopt Californias standards. “Global warming and greenhouse gases pose serious health and economic risks,” DiNapoli said. “By acting now, we are acting responsibility to limit the pollutants that directly contribute to global warming and the degradation of air quality” (Detroit News, July 23, 2002).

Congress Looks at Kyoto and National Assessment

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and Foreign Relations Committee held a joint hearing on the Kyoto Protocol and other international environmental treaties on July 24. Christopher C. Horner, counsel to the Cooler Heads Coaliton and senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, testified along with, John Turner, assistant secretary of State, James Connaughton, chairman of Council on Environmental Quality, Maurice Strong, chairman of Canadas Earth Council Institute, and John Dernbach of the Widener University School of Law. Their written testimony is available at http://epw.senate.gov.

On July 25, the House Energy and Commerce Committees Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold a hearing on scientific shortcomings of the National Assessment on the impacts of climate change. Testimony will be available at http://energycommerce.house.gov.

CO2 Dumping: Are They Joking?

Environmental pressure groups are succeeding in their efforts to stop scientific experiments with long-term deep-ocean sequestration of carbon dioxide. On July 2, an international consortium gave up on its application to 5,000 gallons of liquefied CO2 into ocean 3,000 feet below the surface off the island of Kauai in Hawaii. The purpose was to determine its dispersal and effects on ocean chemistry.

Jeff Mikulina, director of the Hawaii chapter of the Sierra Club, told the San Francisco Chronicle (July 2, 2002), “We are encouraged that carbon dioxide dumping did not find a warm reception among Hawaii residents. This experiment was hatched by the fossil fuel industry to allow them to continue their polluting ways.”

And Greenpeace has objected to a similar experiment proposed by the Norwegian Institute for Water Research, claiming that CO2 would fall under an international treaty prohibiting dumping of industrial waste (Greenwire, July 3, 2002). According to a Greenpeace spokesman, “The sea is not a dumping ground. Its illegal to dump nuclear or toxic waste at sea, and its illegal to dump CO₂ the fossil fuel industrys waste.”

California CO2 Bill Passes

The California legislature passed a bill on July 1 designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new vehicles. Governor Gray Davis must sign or veto the bill within 30 days. Davis said, “I believe this bill strikes the appropriate balance, and that’s why I’m strongly inclined to sign it” (Sacramento Bee, July 4, 2002).

The legislation had been stymied for several weeks by intense opposition generated by the auto industry and unions through a major advertising campaign and direct lobbying. Supporters changed the bill number from AB 1058 to AB 1493 without notice, made a few changes to address criticisms, then rushed the bill through the Senate on Saturday, June 29. On Monday, July 1, the Assembly passed it on a 41-30 vote. Assembly rules require a minimum of 41 votes (out of 80) to pass legislation.

If enacted into law, AB 1493 would require the California Air Resources Board to design policies to “achieve the maximum feasible reduction of greenhouse gases” from cars and trucks by 2005. The new regulations would first apply to the 2009 vehicle model year. AB 1493, unlike AB 1058, prohibits new taxes and would allow legislative review before any new regulations went into effect.

Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy (R-Arcadia) spoke of the “hypocrisy” of Democrats who supported the measure while listing the cars they drive, Chevy Suburbans and Jeep Cherokees among them (Los Angeles Times, July 2, 2002). Assemblyman Dennis Hollingsworth (R-Murieta), told the New York Times (July 2): “This will cost lives. The reason it will cost lives is that it will price people out of the market. So they will keep their older cars, which do not have the safety features of newer cars.”

Hearings Will Review Administration Climate Policies

The House Science Committee is holding a hearing on July 10 to review President Bushs climate change policies. Witnesses scheduled to testify are: John Marburger, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Jim Mahoney, Assistant Secretary of Commerce in charge of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and Robert Card, Undersecretary of Energy.

On July 11, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on the Bush Administrations Climate Action Report 2002. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), who will chair the hearing, and Ranking Republican John McCain (R-Az.) have both used the administrations report to the U. N. to attack the administration for not doing enough to stop global warming.

Marburger and Mahoney are also scheduled to testify at the Senate hearing, plus Glenn Hubbard, Chairman of the Presidents Council of Economic Advisers, and James Connaughton, Chairman of the Presidents Council on Environmental Quality.

In related news, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and three other members of the Bush Cabinet sent a letter on July 8 to the president with their recommendations on how to “improve and expand” the voluntary registry of greenhouse gas emissions and reductions managed by the Department of Energy and to create a voluntary transferable credit system for reductions.

President Bush had directed them in his February 14 speech on climate policy to propose improvements. The letter promises new guidelines for the registry by January 2004. The letter may be downloaded at http://www.energy.gov/HQPress/releases02/julpr/GreenhouseGasRegistryLetter.pdf.

Energy Bill Conference Begins, Administration Weighs In

House and Senate conferees on the energy bill, H. R. 4, held their first meeting on June 27, after nearly two weeks of bickering over whether it was the turn of the House or the Senate to chair the conference committee. It was finally agreed that Rep. Billy Tauzin, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, will chair the horse-trading sessions.

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham sent a letter to Tauzin on June 27 detailing the Bush Administrations positions on most of the main provisions in the House and Senate versions. The administration opposes all three climate change titles in the Senate bill (Titles 10, 11, and 13) because they “are not consistent with the Presidents climate plan.” Several sources have told Cooler Heads that during administration deliberations only the Environmental Protection Agency and the Council on Environmental Quality were against opposing the Senates three climate titles.

The administration also opposes the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) passed by the Senate, but supports the Senates expanded ethanol mandate. The RPS would require privately-owned utilities to produce 10% of their power from non-hydro renewable sources by 2020.

Abraham re-iterated Bushs support for oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which was approved by the House. However, while supporting a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the 48 States, the administration opposes the huge subsidies for it contained in the Senate bill.

Senate Committee Votes for CO2 Limits

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted out S. 556, the Clean Power Act, by a 10 to 9 vote on June 27. Although Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said that he would like to bring the bill to the floor this fall, it appears to lack the 60 votes necessary to invoke cloture and end a filibuster.

Chairman Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) was joined by eight committee Democrats and Republican Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in support of Jeffordss bill. Eight Republicans and Democrat Max Baucus, who faces a re-election campaign in Montana, voted against.

Senator Bob Smith (R-N.H.) offered an amendment based on President Bushs Clear Skies initiative. That and several other Republican amendments were offered and then withdrawn before a vote because they were unlikely to pass.

Senator Chafee noted that tourism was the chief source of income in Rhode Island and expressed concern that his states beaches would disappear because of manmade global warming. He cited the administrations Climate Action Report 2002 as evidence.

S. 556 would require electric power plants to reduce their emissions of nitrogen oxides by 83 percent, sulfur dioxide by 83 percent, mercury by 90 percent, and carbon dioxide by 23 percent from today’s levels by 2008. This is the first piece of legislation marked up in Congress to contain mandatory CO2 emission reductions.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, told Environment and Energy Daily (July 10) that he hoped to have President Bushs Clear Skies plan introduced in legislative form before the end of this Congress. He also said that he still opposes regulating CO2 emissions and that he doubts that S. 556 will go anywhere while Bush is in office.

The U.S. Senates Environment and Public Works Committee is scheduled to mark up and vote June 27 on the Clean Power Act (S. 556) proposed by its chairman, Senator James Jeffords (I-Vt.). If enacted, the Kyoto-style policies in the most recent version of the bill would have serious adverse impacts on the reliability and affordability of the nations electricity supply.

The bill would be very costly according to estimates by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The caps on emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, mercury and carbon dioxide would increase residential energy costs by 17 percent and household energy costs by 25 percent by 2010. By 2020, the cumulative cost of S. 556 to energy producers would rise to $177 billion, and eliminate 48 percent of coal-fired electricity production. It would also reduce real GDP by $100 billion the year the caps go into effect.

The full economic impacts are actually much worse, because EIA did not analyze all of the bill’s onerous restrictions, including some Chairman Jeffords added in recent weeks. For example, a provision in the most recent version lowers the specified emission caps by the number of tons collectively emitted by small producers (less than 15 megawatts capacity).

The bill requires coal-fired power plants 40 years and older to install the latest pollution control technology to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions. Edison Electric Institute argues that this requirement would affect 74 percent of coal-fired capacity by 2013 and 83 percent by 2018. This could be virtual death sentence for large portions of U.S. generating capacity. Indeed, a similar rule in California is forcing the retirement of 1,400 megawatts of generating capacity, a loss the state can ill-afford.

The higher electricity prices resulting from S. 556 would fall most heavily on poor people and retirees on fixed incomes. At a hearing on the bill earlier this month, J. Thomas Mullen, president of Catholic Charities Health and Human Services in Cleveland, testified that the bill would literally force retirees or working mothers to have to decide between eating and heating. “These are not choices any senior citizen, child, or for that matter, person in America should make,” said Mullen.

In the latest re-write, Jeffords attempts to deflect that argument by awarding 64 percent of the tradable emission allowances to “trustees” who will provide assistance to the affected households. The idea is that utilities would have to buy the allowances from residential electricity consumers, thereby offsetting the adverse affects on consumers.

But this is just smoke and mirrors according to Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “Where, after all, does Senator Jeffords think utilities are going to get the money to buy emission credits from consumers after spending billions on technology controls and conversions from coal to natural gas?” he asks. “From their consumers, of course.”

U. S. Out of Kyoto For a Decade At Least

There is no chance that the United States will get back into the Kyoto Protocol before 2012, according to Dr. Harlan Watson, the U. S. State Departments senior climate negotiator. The Times of London (May 14, 2002) reported comments made by Watson while in London for talks with British officials.

“We have set 2012 as the date to take stock and if theres going to be a review of policy that is the time to do it,” he said. “We are not going to be part of the Kyoto Protocol for the foreseeable future and the 2005 review is not something we intend on being actively engaged in.”

When asked if that means that U.S. ratification of the Kyoto Protocol has been ruled out for the next decade, Watson responded, “That is correct that there is no chance before 2012. In order for any treaty to be ratified, it needs 67 votes in the Senate, and Kyoto is thus an unratifiable treaty. Theres no way that the U.S. could participate, even if the President sent it up again.” This remains true in Watsons judgment even if a Democrat were elected president in 2004 or 2008.

On a related note, Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky responded on May 15 to an April 8 letter from Christopher Horner, the Cooler Heads Coalitions counsel. Horners letter laid out the case for the U. S. government to remove its signature from the Kyoto Protocol. Dobriansky responded that, “President Bush and this administration have made clear on numerous occasions that the Kyoto Protocol is fatally flawed and that the United States will not participate in it.” She did not address the inconsistency between un-signing the Rome treaty creating the International Criminal Court and keeping the U. S. signature on Kyoto.

California Assembly Delays CO2 Vote

The California Assembly has postponed a vote on a bill that would regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. The bill, AB 1058, would require the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to formulate rules to achieve the “maximum feasible and cost-effective” emissions reductions. If passed into law, the bill would go into effect in 2006 and apply to the 2009 model year.

The Assembly originally passed AB 1058 earlier this year, but must now approve minor Senate changes before it can be sent to Governor Davis. The reported reason the vote has been postponed is that bill supporters arent certain that they have the votes (Greenwire, May 15, 2002). In the last few weeks, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has mounted a large-scale campaign against the measure, including radio and newspaper advertising. The United Auto Workers union has now also come out strongly against it.

According to the San Jose Mercury News (May 14, 2002), Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla (D) originally voted for the bill out of courtesy to its sponsor, Assemblywoman Fran Pavley (D), but is now having second thoughts. He fears that the bill would give CARB too much power. “There is a certain amount of disagreement as to the science and what we can do,” Canciamilla said. “I am wondering now if [the bill] is something that makes sense.”

Canada Finding Reasons Not to Ratify

The Canadian government has just released “A Discussion Paper on Canadas Contribution to Addressing Climate Change.” The paper first sets out the problem: “Business-as-usual projections would see Canadas GHG emissions rise to approximately 809 MT [megatons] by 2010. Canadas Kyoto target is 571 MT by 2010, creating a “gap” of about 240 MT that must be addressed.”

The cost of meeting that target, according to the discussion paper, would be between zero and two percent of GDP by 2010. Instead of growing 31 percent by 2010, GDP would only grow by 29 percent at worst. “The AMG [Analysis and Modelling Group] estimates indicate that, unless policies are well designed, the impact could be uneven across provinces and territories. This is particularly true for the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland.”

The paper offers several options for meeting Canadas Kyoto target, such as a domestic emissions trading program, more specific measures targeted at consumers or particular sectors of the economy, or government purchases of international permits.

Campaign ExxonMobil Warns of “Tobacco Suits”

A new report released by Campaign ExxonMobil, the group responsible for bringing shareholder resolutions to harass the company for its position on global warming, says that the company is risking shareholder value by opposing global warming regulation. ExxonMobil called the analysis “ridiculous.”

The most interesting part of the report is a side bar which threatens that ExxonMobil and other corporations that do not get behind efforts to ration energy will find themselves being hauled into court. “It is highly likely that serious damage will occur as a result of climate change,” says the report. “The aggrieved parties are likely to seek compensation from those who (sic) they regard as responsible.”

The report continues, “While ExxonMobil is no stranger to billion dollar lawsuits, climate change actions could swamp even those seen in the tobacco industry. The potential value at risk here could easily exceed $100 billion, especially as annual losses from climate change could significantly exceed that figure.

“Even if ExxonMobil escapes liability, it could be dragged into interminable lawsuits, at considerable expense and loss of management time. One estimate is that Philip Morris spent as much as $700 million on lawyers in the 1990s.” The report, by Mark Mansley, head of Claros Consulting, can be downloaded at www.campaignexxonmobil.org.

Greenpeace released another attack on ExxonMobil just in time for the international week of protest against the oil giant, which culminates on May 18 with boycotts and demonstrations at Esso stations throughout Britain. Denial and Deception: A Chronicle of ExxonMobils Efforts to Corrupt the Debate on Global Warming may be downloaded at http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/climate/pdfs/exxon_denial.pdf.

The Greenpeace “report” contains some astonishing claims, of which we quote only one: “It was recently reported that Exxon and Mobil spent approximately $1 billion financing the GCC [Global Climate Coalition], though accurate figures may never be known.” A footnote cites an article in the April 5 Guardian newspaper by environment correspondent Paul Brown. Browns article offers no source or evidence for the figure and refers to the GCC as the Climate Change Convention.

Senate Passes “Energy” Bill Loaded with Global Warming Policies

On April 25, the Senate overwhelmingly passed comprehensive energy legislation by a vote of 88-11. Ironically, neither Senate Republicans nor Democrats seemed pleased by the end product.

The Senate bill (formerly S. 1766, then S. 517, and finally passed as H. R. 4) has little in common with either the energy bill the House passed last August or the Bush administrations energy plan released in May 2001. Instead of provisions designed to rebuild Americas energy infrastructure and provide more secure and abundant supplies of energy, the key parts of the Senate bill would raise energy prices for consumers and create countless new government programs, offices, agencies, and reports.

Many key parts of global warming bills introduced in the Senate during this Congress are included. Title XI, which in Majority Leader Tom Daschles (D-S.D.) original version provided for a mandatory registry of greenhouse gas emissions, was replaced with a complex amendment offered by Senators Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) and Sam Brownback (R-Ks.). Their amendment was accepted after an attempt led by Senators Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio) to replace the mandatory registry with a voluntary one was withdrawn because it lacked majority support.

The Brownback-Corzine amendment creates a registry of emissions that would be voluntary in name only. Unless 60% of total U.S. GHG emissions are reported within five years, the registry would automatically become mandatory, although farms and feedlots would be exempt. The amendment would require the reporting of indirect as well as direct emissions, which means that automakers, soda bottlers, and brewers are likely to be forced to report emissions from their products.

Among numerous other global warming provisions, the bill re-directs the efforts of the U.S. Global Change Research Program and makes it a part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and includes “sense of the Senate” language that supersedes the Senates 1997 Byrd-Hagel resolution.

The Senate-passed version also includes a renewable portfolio standard that requires that ten percent of electricity produced by utilities be generated from non-hydro renewable sources by 2019. Another provision designed to raise energy prices an expanded ethanol mandate that will triple the amount of ethanol required in gasoline by 2012 survived repeated attempts by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) to remove or weaken it.

The Senate and House versions of H.R. 4 now go to a conference committee, which will try to produce a compromise bill acceptable to both chambers.

Eileen Claussen, executive director of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a front group for corporations that hope to profit from energy rationing, was elated over the climate provisions in the bill. “This is more activity than we’ve seen on climate change in the Congress, I think, ever, which is a very positive sign,” she said (Los Angeles Times, April 26, 2002).

Vehicle Emissions Bill Passes California Senate Committee

A California Senate Committee has approved, by a vote of 8-3, AB1058, a bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from California automobiles. The measure has already passed the California Assembly, and will be voted on by the full Senate as early as next week.

“The bill,” according to Reuters (May 1, 2002), “would require the states Air Resources Board to adopt regulations that would achieve the maximum feasible reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, emitted by cars and light-duty trucks, the category that includes sport utility vehicles.” The bill originally would have required the regulations to be completed by 2005 and would take effect on January 1, 2006, but an amendment to the bill would give automakers until 2009 to comply with the new standards.

Automakers are attacking the bill, arguing that it is a “driving tax” that would severely impact sales of SUVs, which account for 47 percent of the vehicles sold in California. The bills author, Assemblywoman Fran Pavley of Woodland Hills, dismisses the auto industrys complaints. She claims that automakers will have no problem meeting the new standards, noting that Ford will be coming out with a new gas/electric hybrid SUV in the near future. “A lot of automakers have cars in the works that will offset CO2 emissions,” Pavley said.

EU Hits Rio Target, But Likely to Miss Kyoto Target

The European Union has announced that it has reached the greenhouse gas reduction target that it agreed to under the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The voluntary target was to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by 2000. The EU claims that it reduced its emissions to 3.5 percent below 1990 levels in 2000.

Although the European Commission congratulated itself for the success, it also expressed concern over increases in greenhouse gas emissions between 1999 and 2000. Emissions of carbon dioxide rose by 0.5 percent while emissions of five other greenhouse gases rose by 0.3 percent.

The commission warned that under existing policies the EU would not meet the target it agreed to under the Kyoto Protocol, which is to reduce emissions to eight percent below 1990 levels by the 2008-2012 compliance period.

“All member states except for the United Kingdom project their emissions by 2010 will be above their burden-sharing target under the Kyoto Protocol,” said Commission spokeswoman Pia Ahrenkilde. “The new EEA [European Environment Agency] data confirm that in the year 2000 most member states were well above their target path to Kyoto.”

The EU has been trying to implement a Europe-wide tax on greenhouse gas emissions for ten years, the latest being a “harmonization” tax that has been under negotiation for three years. A recent agreement between the member states may clear the way for it to be in place by the end of 2002. Other measures awaiting approval by member states are an emission trading scheme, and renewable energy and energy efficiency requirements (BNA Daily Environment Report, April 30, 2002).

Wind Power Meets Air Power

Five planned offshore wind power projects in the United Kingdom have run into a difficult snag. The Ministry of Defense has decided that the projects would interfere with military flights and radar. According to the British Wind Energy Association, if the Ministry of Defense successfully blocks the wind projects, then it would have a serious impact on the countrys ability to meet its renewable energy goals.

“If they are built, the 18 sites would provide more than one percent of the U.K. electricity supply,” said BWEA communications chief Alison Hill. “The governments own legal requirement is that 10 percent of its electricity is from renewable energy by 2010. It is widely expected that wind power and offshore will provide half of that.”

BWEA claims that by applying radar-reflective paint the projects will pose no problem for the military (Reuters, April 24, 2002).