Politics

Triumph in Bonn? Or Not!

by William Yeatman on August 2, 2001

in Politics

On Monday, July 23, negotiators in Bonn struck an agreement claiming that they had succeeded in rescuing the Kyoto Protocol despite the U.S.s refusal to endorse it. Pundits across the globe celebrated the breakthrough proclaiming the world safe from greenhouse gases.

“This first small step is a giant leap for humanity and for the future of our planet,” according to World Wildlife Funds Jennifer Morgan. “We have delivered probably the most comprehensive and difficult agreement in human history,” said New Zealand delegate Peter Hodgson (Investors Business Daily, July 24, 2001). And European Union environment commissioner, Margot Wallstrom, declared, “We have finalized the rescue operation. We have rescued the Kyoto protocol. It is a major achievement because we will live with this for many years to come” (The Glasgow Herald, July 24, 2001).

But is all this hyperbole justified? As noted in the July 25 issue of the Los Angeles Times, “After a good nights sleep and some sober contemplation, environmental activists Tuesday conceded the Kyoto Protocol adopted a day earlier falls far short of the lofty goals for fighting global warming contained in the original proposal.”

Indeed, the prognosis is even worse than portrayed in the Los Angeles Times. Nothing

specific was agreed to. For example, the delegates agreed to establish an adaptation fund for developing countries that would be funded by developed countries, but no agreement as to how much each country would contribute was reached. They also agreed that funding for the Global Environment Facility should increase, but again no specifics were contemplated.

As noted by Cooler Heads Counsel, Chris Horner, who attended the Bonn conference, “Negotiators addressed specifics of some among the scores of Kyoto provisions, and some of those resulted in agreement. Notwithstanding the absence of any comprehensive detailing of specifics, however, the bulk of those agreements actually consist of vague palliatives with a promise to continue talking about the issue. That is, for the most part there were merely agreements to agree at a later date.”

In what could be seen as a major defeat for the EU, it finally conceded the use of carbon sinks and emission trading on the insistence of Japan. Last November at the Hague, the EU allowed negotiations to collapse rather than make similar concessions to the U.S. With the U.S. out of the picture, however, Japan has become the key to bringing Kyoto into force because if it, along with the U.S., fails to ratify Kyoto it cannot become international law.

WWFs Jennifer Morgan characterized the reaching of the agreement without the U.S. as a “geopolitical earthquake,” implying a shift in power, but Bushs refusal to accept Kyoto forced the EU to make concessions that it had previously said were unacceptable if the treaty were to retain its “environmental integrity.” Moreover, WWF estimates that the concessions will lower carbon emission reductions from 5.2 percent below 1990 levels to 1.8 percent below 1990 levels.

“The biggest problem,” according to the Electricity Daily (July 26, 2001), “is that, technically speaking, the FCCC Conference of the Parties meeting in Bonn is not adopting rules at all, it is adopting recommendations. Moreover, these recommendations are addressed to a body that does not yet exist, and may not come into being for a long time.”

Rules that are binding on the parties to the protocol cannot be made until the protocol is ratified and becomes international law and the “Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties,” or COP/MOP, is created. “Every binding rule adopted in the Bonn agreement is carefully phrased as a recommendation to the COP/MOP, because the COP cannot make Protocol rules at this time,” says Electricity Daily.

That, all along, has been the major barrier to ratification for most of the countries with targets and timetables. Without knowing what the specific rules will be with regards to monitoring and enforcement, for instance, they are loath to ratify. Yet rules cannot be made until Kyoto is ratified.

Finally, although Japan has tentatively agreed to the recommendations made in Bonn, there is still no guarantee that it will ratify Kyoto. Indeed, a EU delegation source stated, “Ratification is by no means a foregone conclusion” (Agence France Presse, July 24, 2001). Japan has continued to insist on U.S. participation.

Australia has taken a similar stance. Australias environment minister, Robert Hill said that, “At the end of the day there are some very good parts to this agreement for Australia but there are still some areas which we have concerns with.” He also said, “you cant have an effective global response without the U.S.” Russia has also shown skepticism with the process and has yet to signal its willingness to ratify the treaty.

Uncertainty Abounds Before Bonn; Australia attempts to salvage Kyoto

by William Yeatman on July 10, 2001

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics

Uncertainty Abounds Before Bonn

As negotiations resume in Bonn next week, it is not clear what will become of the Kyoto Protocol. Although the U.S. will send a delegation to the talks headed by Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky, the State Department has confirmed that President Bush remains opposed to the treaty. According to State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, “The United States takes climate change very seriously and will work constructively within the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.”

“The United States is working with our allies to develop an effective and science-based approach to addressing global climate change,” he said (Greenwire, June 11, 2001).

Japan has become the key player in the negotiations. For the Kyoto Protocol to become international law a sufficient number of Annex I countries those required to make cuts in greenhouse gas emissions representing 55 percent of Annex I 1990 emissions, must ratify it. That threshold cannot be met without either Japan or the U.S.

Japans Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has been pressured by the EU to ratify Kyoto without the U.S. He has made it clear, however, that he has no plans to do so, but in the meantime will work to persuade the U.S. to ratify Kyoto. He also urged the EU to take a more flexible stance on the issue (Asia Pulse, July 11, 2001).

A possible concession to placate Japan would be to postpone the Kyoto timetables, even though the protocol states that targets and timetables cannot be changed until after the protocol goes into effect. Currently, Kyoto requires that during the period of 2008 to 2012 a countrys average emissions should be at the target level. The Chairman of the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, Jan Pronk said, “I can imagine that it would be possible to postpone the date of 2008 by two years, to 2010” (New York Times, July 6, 2001).

Canadas Environment Minister, David Anderson believes that efforts by the EU to proceed with Kyoto are a waste of time. “The EU may be right. It may be theoretically possible to proceed with Kyoto. But what is the victory worth?” he said. “Kyoto is only a means to an end. Effective climate change action cannot operate effectively without the United States” (Ottawa Citizen, July 11, 2001).

Meanwhile, a cryptic statement from the head of the U.N. Environment Program, Klaus Toepfer, suggests that the G-8 meeting in Genoa, Italy next week will play a role in forcing the issue. “Theres more than good reason to think there will be a signal coming from Genoa to Bonn to finalize it,” he said (Greenwire, July 11, 2001).

Australia attempts to salvage Kyoto

In an interview with Reuters (July 11, 2001), Australian Environment Minister Robert Hill outlined his plan to woo the U.S. back in to the Kyoto Protocol. Australia has been trying to get major developing countries, like China and India, to participate in a greenhouse gas reduction program. This would address one of the U.S.s primary concerns about the Kyoto pact. However, Hill has not found eager participants. “they cant see why they should accept legal constraints on burning carbon which could constrain their economic growth.”

Without a plan to include developing countries in Kyoto and with other concerns left unaddressed, the U.S. is unlikely to change its position at the upcoming talks in Bonn. Hill said that no deal should be reached at Bonn if it does not include the U.S. “We will continue to negotiate the Kyoto rulesbut we would argue it would be better if that process wasnt completed at this meeting in order that the door might be left open for the United States.”

Informal Talks Hit Early Snags; Knollenberg Provision Survives; UK to Evaluate Nukes

by William Yeatman on June 26, 2001

in Politics

Informal Talks Hit Early Snags

Informal talks are being held this week in the Hague in preparation for the resumption of COP-6 in the Bonn in mid-July. The talks were hastily arranged by COP-6 president Jan Pronk to figure out how to continue negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol in the face of U.S. opposition. Early press reports suggest that bickering has broken out between the parties.

Interestingly, although President Bush has rejected the Kyoto Protocol, he has sent a delegation, led by Kenneth Brill, to participate in the negotiations. It is not clear what roll the Bush Administration intends to play in further talks.

According to a June 26 Agence France Presse article, part of Pronks proposal is for the industrialized countries to provide one billion dollars per year to help developing countries adapt to global warming. Although Russia has managed to obtain a concession to halve the contribution of former communist countries to the fund, the Eastern European countries are apparently still opposed to the plan. “This will be a big problem for getting the treaty ratified,” a source in the European Union said.

Another obstacle is the reluctance of Japan to proceed in the negotiations without U.S. cooperation. On June 27, the BBC reported that Japans environment minister Yoriko Kawaguchi, criticized Pronks plan and reiterated that U.S. participation is still essential to make Kyoto succeed. Pronk and the EU have offered several concessions in an attempt to convince the Japanese government to ratify Kyoto without the U.S.

The informal Hague talks began with a meeting of the Group of 77 developing nations. They are scheduled to meet later in the week with the industrialized nations to try to resolve their remaining differences.

Knollenberg Provision Survives

During floor debate in the U.S. House of Representatives over the FY 2002 transportation appropriations bill (H.R. 2299) on June 26, the Knollenberg provision, which prohibits any federal action to implement or prepare to implement the Kyoto Protocol prior to Senate ratification, survived efforts to eliminate or weaken it. This is the latest of a series of similar attempts over the past two years.

After an attempt to eliminate the provision failed, Reps. John Olver (D-MA) and Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), offered an amendment that would have exempted any activities authorized under existing law from the Knollenberg provision. However, they then agreed to withdraw their amendment before it came to a vote.

According to Environment and Energy Daily (June 27, 2001), the bill that passed the House Appropriations Committee on June 13 does not include language blocking the administration from raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. “Congressional sources said there was no mention of CAFE standards in the list of amendments expected to be offered to the bill on the floor, though that does not mean one will not be offered,” according to the article.

UK to Evaluate Nukes

Fearing they will not be able to meet their Kyoto target, Britain has begun an energy needs review. According to a June 26 Financial Times article, the review will focus heavily on nuclear power.

Energy minister Brian Wilson will chair the review, much to the chagrin of Greenpeace, who said it was like “putting a fox in charge of the hen coop.” Wilson, an advocate of nuclear power, said the review will be finished by the end of the year and will focus on the role of nuclear, coal, gas, oil, renewable energy, combined heat and power and enhanced energy efficiency.

The Labor Party had pledged not to build any nuclear stations, but this could mean the end of that pledge. The party would rather break promises than abandon the unachievable Kyoto Protocol. In order to meet Kyotos targets, Wilson thinks Britain should reduce its carbon emissions. “In the longer term we will need to reduce our carbon emissions further in order to play our part in meeting the challenge of global warming.”

Currently, Britain is heavily dependent on gas and some think the country should diversify. Gas prices have doubled in the past year because the main producers tie their gas prices to oil prices. Because they rely heavily on one source, consumers are very aware of gas price fluctuations.

This dependence on gas has led to the energy review. The plan aims to meet “the challenge of global warming while ensuring secure, diverse and reliable energy supplies at a competitive price.” For all of their posturing on Kyoto, it seems even European countries will find it difficult to meet their targets, as there is much opposition to nuclear power in Britain. Friends of the Earth UK said nuclear technology is dangerous and uneconomic. With that ringing endorsement, the review steams ahead.

Bush Reaffirms Opposition to Kyoto, Proposes Alternatives; COP-6 President Presents Plan

by William Yeatman on June 12, 2001

in Politics

Bush Reaffirms Opposition to Kyoto, Proposes Alternatives

President George W. Bush made a major policy statement on global warming and the Kyoto Protocol on June 11, immediately before flying off to a week of meetings with European leaders. Although the speech may have been intended to assure European leaders that he is committed to taking action on global warming, his strong, reiterated opposition to the Kyoto Protocol drew immediate criticism throughout Europe before Air Force one landed in Madrid.

Bush said that the Kyoto Protocol was “fatally flawed in fundamental ways” and “unrealistic.” He noted, “Many countries cannot meet their Kyoto targets. The targets themselves are arbitrary and not based upon science.”

He stated clearly that he accepted that the global mean temperature had “risen about 0.6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years.” But he went on to emphasize that major scientific uncertainties remain. “We do not know how much effect natural variations in climate may have had on warming,” and hence the influence of manmade emissions; “how much our climate could or will change in the future” or “how fast change will occur or even how some of our actions could impact it;” and “no one can say with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level of warming and therefore what level must be avoided.”

Opposing Kyoto does not mean that the U.S. will drop out of the ongoing negotiations process. The administration will attend COP-6.5 in Bonn, Germany in July. President Bush proposed several actions, including two research programs, the Climate Change Research Initiative, to further study global warming, and the Climate Change Technology Initiative, to subsidize the development of technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These programs resemble ongoing Clinton Administration programs.

He also stated that these are only the first steps that the administration will propose in the next few months. Inside EPA reported on June 8 that options under active consideration include several cap-and-trade systems for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and a crash program to develop technology to sequester carbon dioxide from hydrocarbon combustion.

COP-6 President Presents Plan

Mr. Jan Pronk, president of the UNFCCCs sixth conference of the parties and Dutch environment minister, released a “consolidated negotiating text” on June 11. It is meant to serve as the starting point for the resumption of COP-6 in Bonn, Germany, July 16-28. The 180 or so pages may be downloaded at www.unfccc.de. Pronk has also scheduled preliminary informal discussion June 25-28 in the Hague.

Pronks proposed negotiating text makes significant concessions to the position of Japan. It might therefore be concluded that Pronks strategy is to isolate the United States by drawing Japan into full support of the Kyoto Protocol.

Bush May Propose Kyoto-lite; NAS Reviewing Climate Science; World Attacks Bush Again

by William Yeatman on May 29, 2001

in Politics

Bush May Propose Kyoto-lite

While the Kyoto Protocol looks dead at the moment, it might be coming back to life. The Bush administration is currently working on an alternative to Kyoto that should be ready for the EU-U.S. summit meeting in Goteborg, Sweden this June.

Although the administrations deliberations on the new plans have been secretive, the May 25 issue of Inside EPA said the plan would probably include technology development, market mechanisms, such as emission trading, and carbon sequestration. European leaders are skeptical, however, that the plan will come out in time for the meeting in Sweden. In fact, they are skeptical that it will be out in time for the international climate change treaty negotiation in Bonn this July.

Wilfried Schneider, deputy director of press and public affairs for the European Commission, said US participation is critical to the climate talks. “There is no point” in trying “to solve global pollution without the United States, the greatest polluting country.”

To complicate the issue, the Democrats have taken over the Senate. In the past, both Democrats and Republicans have been against Kyoto, but now many Democrats may support Kyoto in part because the president is opposed to it. Democrats, such as Senators John Kerry (D-

Mass.), Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Tom Daschle (D-S.Dakota), have reportedly been discussing offering a resolution to replace the Byrd-Hagel Resolution.

NAS Reviewing Climate Science

The National Academy of Sciences, at the request of the Bush Administration, has convened a committee of scientists to review global warming science. The project will cover much of the same ground as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Some of the questions to be addressed include, “Is climate change occurring? If so, how?” and “Are greenhouse gases causing climate change? What is the relative contribution of each of the major gases?” They are expected to deliver their results to the White House next month.

Members of the committee include:

  • (Chairman) Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone (NAS) is the chancellor of the University of California at Irvine and the Daniel G. Aldrich Professor in the Departments of Earth System Science and Chemistry.

  • Dr. Robert E. Dickinson (NAS) is a professor of dynamics and climate in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

  • Dr. James E. Hansen (NAS) is head of the NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

  • Dr. Eric J. Barron is director of the Earth and Mineral Sciences Environment Institute and distinguished professor of geosciences at Pennsylvania State University.

  • Dr. Inez Y. Fung (NAS) is the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor for the Physical Sciences, director of the Center for Atmospheric Sciences, and a professor in the Departments of Earth & Planetary Science and of Environmental Sciences, Policy & Management at the University of California at Berkeley.

  • Dr. Richard S. Lindzen (NAS) is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusets Institute of Technology.

  • Dr. John M. Wallace (NAS) is a professor of atmospheric sciences and co-director of the University of Washington Program on the Environment.

  • Dr. James C. McWilliams is the Slichter Professor of Earth Sciences in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences and the Institute for Geophysics at the University of California at Los Angeles.

  • Dr. F. Sherwood Rowland (NAS) is the Donald Bren Research Professor of Chemistry and Earth System Sciences at the University of California at Irvine.

  • Dr. Edward S. Sarachik is a professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences and an adjunct professor in the School of Oceanography at the University of Washington.

  • Mr. Thomas R. Karl is the director of the National Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

World Attacks Bush Again

International reaction to President Bushs national energy policy has, with the exception of Italys new leader, been hysterically negative.

Mr. Jan Pronk, Dutch Environment Minister and chairman of the sixth Conference of Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, blasted the plan, saying, “Disconnecting energy and climate policies from each other is fairly disastrous. We were expecting an all inclusive program but that didn’t happen” (Agence France Presse, May 18, 2001). This is an odd expectation given President Bushs clear rejection of carbon dioxide regulations. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan used his commencement address at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University to berate the U.S., accusing the administration of putting the world at risk. “Make no mistake all countries will suffer,” he said, calling U.S. actions a “grievous setback” (UPI, May 20, 2001).

With Italys election of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, President Bush now has an ally in Europe for many foreign policy decisions that other European officials have criticized. He remarked, “I am on whatever side America is on, even before I know what it is” (Chicago Tribune, May 24, 2001).

Berlusconis leading candidate for environment minister, Altero Matteoli, has praised Bushs energy plan stating that “Europe dreams, while Bush sees reality and marks the trail for everyone” (BBC, May 20, 2001).

Pro-Kyoto Amendment Passes House; Dueling Energy Plans; Rio Tinto Goes Pew

by William Yeatman on May 15, 2001

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics

Pro-Kyoto Amendment Passes House

On May 16 the U.S. House of Representatives passed the State Department Budget Authorization (H.R. 1646) by a 352 to 73 vote. Included in the bill was an amendment to urge the Bush Administration to continue its participation in the Kyoto negotiations. Reportedly, the amendment was added to the bill in the International Relations Committee on May 2 when several Republican congressmen had momentarily left the room. The amendment passed in committee 23-20 on a nearly party line vote, with Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) being the only Republican to vote for the amendment.

The amendment reads in part: “SENSE OF CONGRESS- It is the sense of the Congress that the United States should demonstrate international leadership and responsibility in mitigating the health, environmental, and economic threats posed by global warming by

  • “taking responsible action to ensure significant and meaningful reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from all sectors; and

  • “continuing to participate in international negotiations with the objective of completing the rules and guidelines for the Kyoto Protocol in a manner that is consistent with the interests of the

United States and that ensures the environmental integrity of the protocol.”

The amendment wasnt challenged on the floor of the House, because, according to a committee spokesman, the Bush Administration had indicated that it would continue to participate in future negotiations. However, since the amendment specifically urges the administration to negotiate “with the objective of completing the rules and guidelines for the Kyoto Protocol,” the House action clearly goes beyond stated administration policy (Greenwire, May 14, 2001).

Dueling Energy Plans

In an attempt to pre-empt the Bush Administrations forthcoming energy plan, congressional Democrats have released a plan of their own. If implemented, it would greatly exacerbate the energy crisis rather than solve it.

The first proposal is to put price controls on wholesale electricity prices by calling on Congress to pass either the Feinstein-Smith bill (S. 764) or the Inslee bill (H.R. 1468) “that will return the West to just and reasonable cost-of-service based rates until March 1, 2003.” This displays an appalling lack of basic economic understanding. Price controls invariably lead to shortages because they do nothing to depress demand or increase supply. They were the cause of gasoline shortages and gas lines in the 1970s.

Other proposals in the Democrats plan are similarly ill-conceived and counter-productive. It has been reported that the Bush Administrations energy proposals to be released on May 17 will focus on increasing energy production, removing supply bottlenecks created by government regulations, and rebuilding and enlarging Americas energy infrastructure.

Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) arrived at the press conference, held at the Capitol Hill Exxon gas station, to unveil the Democratic energy plan in a large SUV. When asked about Gephardts apparent hypocrisy, his spokesman Eric Smith said with a straight face, “We dont say anything about changing peoples lifestyles” (New York Post, May 16, 2001). To the contrary, their plan is all about government forcing people to change their lifestyles.

Rio Tinto Goes Pew

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change announced on May 15 that Rio Tinto has joined its Business Environmental Leadership Council. London-based Rio Tinto is one of the worlds largest multi-national mining conglomerates. It is also a major coal producer.

Rio Tinto is the first mining company to join the Pew Centers Council. The Pew Center is a leading industry-front group, now comprised of 33 corporations that hope to profit from higher energy prices. The Pew Center was founded in 1998 and is largely funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, which was based on the Pew familys Sun Oil Company fortune.

Other corporate members of the Pew Center are: ABB; Air Products and Chemicals, Alcoa; American Electric Power; Baxter International; Boeing; BP (Beyond Petroleum); California Portland Cement Co.; CH2MHILL; Cummins Inc.; DTE Energy; DuPont; Enron; Entergy; Georgia-Pacific; Holnam; IBM; Intel; Interface Inc.; Lockheed Martin; Maytag; Ontario Power Generation; PG&E Corporation; Rohm and Haas; Royal Dutch/Shell; Sunoco; Toyota; TransAlta Corp.; United Technologies; Weyerhaeuser; Whirlpool and Wisconsin Energy Corporation.

Bush Administration Seeks Advice; Hearings Cool Senates Zeal

by William Yeatman on May 1, 2001

in Politics

Bush Administration Seeks Advice

The New York Times reported on April 28 that the White House has held a number of high-level briefings on global warming since the administration announced in March that it would not propose regulating CO2 emissions from utilities and that it considered the Kyoto Protocol dead.

Regular attendees have included Vice President Cheney, Secretaries Paul ONeill from Treasury and Spencer Abraham from Energy, EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, and several White House policy staffers.

The report by Andrew C. Revkin gives indirect support to rumors that the Bush Administration is considering several proposals to address global warming, including “voluntary” and mandatory cap-and-trade limits on CO2 emissions. In addition, the administration now apparently plans to bring a “constructive position” to the ongoing Kyoto Protocol negotiations in Bonn in July.

The New York Times claims, “There is a growing realization at the White House that the blunt rejection of the [Kyoto] treaty may have caused more problems than it solved.” It quoted one senior government official as saying, “The decisions six weeks ago were made in an appalling vacuum of information. A substantial portion of the people involved wish they had it to do over again. They might still have rejected Kyoto, but probably in a different way.”

“The list of speakers,” according to the New York Times, “has been dominated by scientists and policy experts who believe that a recent global warming trend is at least partly caused by humans, poses risks and requires a significant response to stem the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

Those briefing the White House included: Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. James E. Hansen, a climate modeler with the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Dr. Daniel L. Albritton, head of the National Oceanic and Atmophseric Administrations (NOAA) Aeronomy Laboratory, Dr. Richard L. Schmalensee, the dean of the Sloan School of Management at MIT, William K. Reilly, former EPA administrator and current president of the World Wildlife Fund, and Kevin Fay, executive director of the International Climate Change Partnership, an industry front-group that favors Kyoto-style regulations.

Hearings Cool Senates Zeal

Two Senate hearings this week gave global warming alarmists little to cheer about. On May 1, the Commerce Committee heard from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead authors Dr. Richard S. Lindzen and Dr. James Hansen, and co-chairmen of the IPCCs Working Groups I, II, and III: Dr. Venkatachala Ramaswamy, senior scientist at NOAAs Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Dr. James McCarthy, director of Harvard Universitys Museum of Comparative Zoology, and Dr. Jayant Sathaye, senior scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

When asked what they would do to deal with global warming if they were legislators, four of the five witnesses endorsed “no regrets” actions and more scientific research. Dr. McCarthy opined that the IPCCs Third Assessment Report shows that more urgent actions are necessary. It is worth recalling that McCarthy was the source for the New York Timess story last August that the North Pole “was melting.” The Times quickly corrected McCarthys ridiculous claims.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committees hearing on May 2 was most notable for some of the remarks made by members of the committee. Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) pointed to all the people who died of carbon monoxide (or is it carbon dioxide?) poisoning every year when they left their car engines running inside closed garages as evidence of how serious the problem of global warming is.

Senator Hilary Clinton (D-NY) blamed global warming for increasing smog and for higher asthma rates in children. She also noted that the administrations energy proposals would make it much harder to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Witnesses included Lindzen, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section of the Climate and Global Dynamics Division of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and Dr. John Christy, professor with the Department of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville.

Most of the questions were directed at Jim Rogers, CEO of Cinergy, a major utility that burns 30 million tons of coal per year. Rogers told the committee that while he favored no regrets actions at this time, regulatory certainty was the most important policy for his company. The Congress should decide whether and exactly how it is going to regulate CO2 emissions so that utilities can plan future capital investments.

Global Warmings Budget Blues; Pronk Threatens U. S. with Trade Sanctions; Japan Not Likely to Sign Kyoto

by William Yeatman on April 19, 2001

in Politics

Global Warmings Budget Blues

President George W. Bushs proposed federal budget for FY2002 begins to reverse some of the spending on climate change programs favored by the Clinton-Gore Administration. The Department of Energys budget, for instance, cuts renewable energy technology programs by $135.7 million, a 36.4 percent decrease for 2002. Biomass technology programs would be cut by 6.7 percent.

Funding for hydropower technology is cut in half and hydrogen research by 48 percent. Solar research is cut by 37 percent. These cuts make a lot of sense given the billions of dollars wasted on renewable energy programs over the last 25 years, which have yielded few demonstrable economic or environmental benefits, according to several government studies and reviews.

Unfortunately, some other energy research subsidies see an increase in proposed funding. Bushs energy budget requests $150 million in grants to states for the clean coal research and development program. It would also increase carbon sequestration studies by ten percent, from $18.7 million to $20.7 million.

To offset reductions in renewable energy research, the budget will add $1.4 billion for the Weatherization Assistance grant program over the next 10 years and increase biomass research by $30 million.

Bushs budget also makes a modest cut in the U.S. Global Change Research Programs budget of $200,000, as well as a cut of $528,000 in the Environmental Protection Agencys climate programs (Greenwire, April 11, 2001).

Pronk Threatens U. S. with Trade Sanctions

Mr. Jan Pronk, Hollands environment minister and president of the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the U. N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, attacked the Bush Administrations decision to walk away from the Kyoto Protocol in a February 17 speech in Washington, D. C. He went on to threaten trade sanctions against the U. S. if it did not return to the “Kyoto family.”

Describing himself as “guardian of a multilateral process,” Pronk told an international conference that policy reviews were to be expected when countries changed governments, but this review must be within the international framework. No one country has the right to make a unilateral decision to abandon Kyoto.

Pronk also said that he was willing to make large concessions to the U. S. position on contentious issues in order to keep “the family” together. In his personal view, everything is on the table except for the Protocol itselfthat is, the targets and timetables. To start all over at this stage would waste the immense work already done. But he cautioned that it would be up to all the parties to decide what could be negotiated. Pronk has published his own compromise proposals on the conventions web site (www.unfcc.de). These proposals actually allow greater reliance on carbon sinks and emissions trading than those the Clinton Administration made at last Novembers COP-6 meeting in the Hague. Thus it appears that Pronk is willing to do almost anything to save the Kyoto negotiations.

Pronks speech was given at the “Equity and Global Climate Change” conference sponsored by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. He made similar remarks at a press conference at the National Press Club the next day, May 18.

Other speakers included: Senator Sam Brownback (RKansas); Klaus Topfer, head of the U. N. Environment Programme; Raul Estrada-Oyeula, Argentinas special representative for the environment who chaired the Kyoto negotiations in 1997; Australian environment minister Robert Hill; and Kazuo Asakai, Japans ambassador for international environmental and economic affairs. The Pew Center is one of the principal industry-front groups supporting the Kyoto Protocol. It is funded primarily by the Pew Charitable Trusts, which were created out of the Sun Oil fortune.

Japan Not Likely to Sign Kyoto

The European Union has vowed to push for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol without the United States. For the Kyoto Protocol to enter into force, it is necessary for Annex I countries (those which have emission reduction targets) representing 55 percent of Annex I greenhouse gas emissions ratify the treaty.

Australias Environment Minister, Senator Robert Hill, has said that his country will not ratify the treaty ahead of the United States (Associated Press, April 15, 2001). More importantly, according to the Washington Times (April 11, 2001), Japan will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol either. “At this moment, Japan is not thinking of ratifying the protocol without the United States,” said Hakariko Ono, spokesman for a delegation of Japanese environmental ministers that met with Bush officials last week. Without Japan and the United States, it is no longer possible to reach the 55 percent threshold required to activate Kyoto.

The EUs rhetoric suggests a bit of deviousness on their part, however. “We had quite a positive statement and quite a positive message from Iran which represents a group of 77 developing nations, and also from Russia and China, about going on even without the United States,” said Swedish Environment Minister Kjell Larsson. “I think we have very strong support for the treaty from all countries but the United States.”

It seems that the EU is attempting a sleight-of-hand reinterpretation of the Kyoto provision on ratification by saying that countries representing 55 percent of global greenhouse emissions is needed for Kyoto to come into force, which could be easily achieved without the U.S. In reality a total of 55 countries must ratify Kyoto with a sufficient number of Annex I countries representing 55 percent of Annex I emissions. Ratification by the group of 77 or by China or India does not count toward the 55 percent emissions threshold.

Further Fallout from Kyoto Decision; Australia to Follow U.S.; Europes Secular Religion

by William Yeatman on April 3, 2001

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics

Further Fallout from Kyoto Decision

Criticism continues to fly at the United States from the European Union over President Bushs decision to withdraw U.S. support for the Kyoto Protocol.

The United Kingdoms Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, accused the U.S. of “free-riding” in “glorious isolation,” isolationist being an ugly epithet amongst internationalists. The U.S. “must know that it cannot pollute the world while free-riding on action by everyone else,” said Prescott.

Other leaders have not been so diplomatic. Several statements have contained outright threats. John Gummer, Tory MP and former environment secretary, called Bushs decision “an assault on European sovereignty,” wrote Mark Steyn in Londons Sunday Telegraph (April 1, 2001). “Globally warming to his theme,” wrote Steyn, Gummer “decided he wasnt going to have Yankee imperialism shoved down his throat. We are not going to allow our climate to be changed by somebody else, he roared, threatening an international trade war against the United States. You go, girl! Why not refuse to sell the Yanks your delightful British beef?” A blustering Margot Wallstrom, the EU environment commissioner, stated, “I dont think that we should let the United States simply pull out of the Kyoto Protocol” (Financial Times, March 29, 2001).

Perhaps the most strident statement came from Malcolm Bruce, president of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. He accused Bush of wanting to kill “thousands and millions” of people by pollution. “George Bush prides himself on having authorized the execution of more people than many dictators, but he is now tearing up the Kyoto Treaty on behalf of the polluting oil, gas and mining interests that back him and his family,” said Bruce. “Not content is he with killing Texan prisoners by lethal injection, he now wants to kill thousands and millions around the world by lethal pollution” (www.ananova.com, April 1, 2001).

These criticisms may be seen as slightly hypocritical, since none of the EU countries has ratified the Kyoto Protocol. More hypocritical are criticisms by Russia and China. Russia cut a deal under Kyoto where it would essentially have no commitments and be able to profit by selling empty emission credits to the United States (Russia Today, April 1, 2001).

China, which wont even consider taking on commitments, voluntary or otherwise, said that, “The U.S. announcement that it will not meet its emission reduction duties, citing the lack of obligations on developing countries, violates the principled rules of the Kyoto Protocol and is irresponsible” (Inside China, March 30, 2001).

Not all of the comments from abroad have been negative, however. Canadas environment minister, David Anderson, blamed Europe for Bushs decision. “The problem was the rigid position of the Europeans who thought they could force the Americans to do something they knew the Americans couldnt do.” The Times of India (April 1, 2001) reported that Anderson believes that Europes “rigid stance” left Bush “little option” but to withdraw from the treaty.

Australia to Follow U.S.

Australia, which has been less than enthusiastic about Kyoto from the beginning, may follow the U.S. According to The Age (April 2, 2001), “Federal cabinet is today poised to back the United States in an effective withdrawal from the Kyoto global warming reduction process, hastening the collapse of the international protocol.” The story notes that, “Key cabinet ministers backed by Prime Minister John Howard will argue that a new deal needs to be established, including controls on greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries such as China.”

This is important because the Kyoto Protocol does not enter into force unless Annex I countries those which are required to reduce emissions under the Kyoto Protocol accounting for at least 55 percent of 1990 emissions ratify it. If the U.S. and Australia fail to ratify the protocol, it may be nearly impossible for it to come into force.

Europes Secular Religion

We shouldnt be surprised by the European reaction to the United States withdrawal form the Kyoto Protocol, writes Philip Stott, a professor of biogeography at the University of London. In a Wall Street Journal (April 2, 2001) op-ed Stott says, “The reason is simple. In Europe, global warming has become a necessary myth, a new fundamentalist religion, with the Kyoto Protocol as it articles of faith. The adherents of this new faith want Mr. Bush on trial because he has blasphemed.”

“Global warming,” wrote Stott, “has absorbed more of the emotional energy of European green pressure groups than virtually any other topic.” Moreover, “the science of complex climate change has little to do with the myth. In the U.S., the science is rightly scrutinized; in Europe, not so.”

“Interestingly,” said Stott, “the tension between science and myth characterizes the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to which Europe always turns for legitimation. The whole feel of the report differs between its political summary (written by a group powerfully driven by the myth) and the scientific sections. It comes as a shock to read the following in the conclusions to the science (italics added): In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate is not possible.“

“Inevitably,” said Stott, “the media in Europe did not mention this vital scientific caveat, choosing to focus instead on the political summary, which Richard S. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has described scathingly as very much a childrens exercise of what might possibly happen, prepared by a peculiar group with no technical competence. This is a damning statement from a scientist with impeccable credentials.”

“The science of global warming is thus deeply flawed,” said Stott. “The idea that we can control a chaotic climate governed by a billion factors through fiddling about with a couple of politically selected gases is carbon claptrap.”

Bush Decides Against Regulating CO2; Reactions to the Presidents Decision

by William Yeatman on March 20, 2001

in Politics

Bush Decides Against Regulating CO2

President George W. Bush announced on March 13 that his administration would not seek congressional approval to regulate carbon dioxide emissions produced by electric utilities. In a letter to Senators Hagel, Craig, Helms, and Roberts, Bush said that “important new information” from an Energy Information Administration study “concluded that including caps on carbon dioxide emissions as part of a multiple emissions strategy would lead tosignificantly higher electricity prices”

“At a time when California has already experienced energy shortages, and other Western states are worried about price and availability of energy this summer, we must be very careful not to take actions that could harm consumers,” Bush continued in the letter. “This is especially true given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change and the lack of commercially available technologies for removing and storing carbon dioxide.”

The president also made it clear that he does support changes to the Clean Air Act that would allow regulation using the “multi-pollutant strategy” for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. Such an approach is part of a “comprehensive and balanced national energy policy that takes into account the importance of improving air quality.”

Bush stated at the beginning of his letter to the four Senators that, “As you know, I oppose the Kyoto Protocol.” And he concluded, “I look forward to working with you and others to address global climate change issues in the context of a national energy policy that protects our environment, consumers, and economy.”

The beginning of the controversy was reported in the March 7 issue of the Cooler Heads Newsletter. Members of the Cooler Heads Coalition played significant roles in calling attention to the issue and in convincing the Bush-Cheney Administration to decide against regulating carbon dioxide emissions. A number of Senators and Representatives, in addition to the four listed above, also raised their concerns. They included Senators Inhofe, Nickles, and Voinovich and Representatives DeLay, Barton, Knollenberg, Emerson, and John Peterson.

Reactions to the Presidents Decision

President Bushs decision not to regulate CO2 emissions prompted immediate reactions from supporters of the Kyoto Protocol around the world. Michael Oppenheimer of Environmental Defense accused Bush of rejecting “the judgment of the worlds leading climate scientists.”

Greenpeace was harsher. “When you put two oil men in the White House, I guess this is what you have to expect,” said Greenpeace Climate Policy Director Bill Hare. “Apparently Mrs. Whitmans environmentally responsible position has not carried the day, and we can expect the Neanderthal, head-in-the-sand rhetoric of Bush to prevail in this administration.” Hare also accused Bush of “rejecting the worldwide scientific consensus on global warming” and “listening to listening to extreme Flat Earth minority viewpoints on the science.”

Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope accused President Bush of “bowing to big business instead of honoring his commitment to our children.” And from the Senate, Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) showed his ignorance by claiming the Bushs decision would lead to dirtier air. “In this case, turnabout is foul play and will mean foul air,” he said at a press conference decrying Bushs decision.

On the other hand, a number of Cooler Heads Coalition members sent out press releases praising President Bushs decision. These included Consumer Alert, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the National Center for Public Policy Research, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Although the majority of newspapers across the country criticized Bushs decision, several applauded it. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution (March 15, 2001) said, “Refusing to call for reductions in CO2 emissions is the most sensible step the president could make.”

It also said, “Last we heard, one needs to establish that there is a problem before implementing a solution. When this nation spends billions of dollars tackling an unnecessary task in the name of environmental protection, it diverts time, energy, money and attention from environmental issues where we truly could make a difference. Environmental groups lose credibility when they cry wolf and denounce the president, who insists environmental policy be based on facts and scientific research.”

The Orange County Register also chimed in quickly (March 16): “The Bush administration made a correct decisionand in some ways a brave onewhen it decided not to ask for emissions reductions of carbon dioxide from American power plants. It represented a willingness to listen to valid concerns about the cost of regulation, to look at the state of science on global warming rather than responding to arguments based on emotional convictions, and to make a common-sense decision that reflects the interests of the vast majority of American consumers rather than an insulated policy elite.Perhaps most unusually for a group of politicians, Mr. Bush and his advisers were willing to say forthrightly that a previous position had been a mistake and to take the heat for admitting it was a mistake.”

Investors Business Daily on March 19 noted the common sense behind Bushs decision. “[T]he evidence on CO2s contribution to global warming is far from clear. Every creature on the earth emits CO2 when they exhale – and theyve been doing so since the first pollywogs climbed out on land. Its also far from clear that some global warming wouldnt benefit mankind. Longer crop seasons could help underdeveloped countries feed their citizens. Warmer climes could reduce stress and mental illness. More arable land could be freed up. Less fossil fuel would be used for heat, meaning less pollution.”

The March 21 Kansas City Star weighed costs and benefits: “Though nobody knows with certainty whether global warming is real or whether its really a threat if it is, what is known with certainty is that raising the regulatory bar for carbon dioxide will raise the price of electric power at a time when America can least afford it.”

Finally, criticism from abroad has been heavy, especially from Europe. The quote that most clearly reveals the European agenda at the Kyoto negotiations came from Margot Wallstrom, the European Unions commissioner for the environment. “This is not a simple environmental issue where you can say it is an issue where the scientists are not unanimous. This is about international relations, this is about economy, about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world. You have to understand what is at stake and that is why it is serious.”

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →