Politics

Europes Anti-Fuel Tax Protests

Truck and taxi drivers across Europe and Great Britain have staged demonstrations to protest high prices on gasoline. The French government gave in to demands and promise a cut in gas taxes to ease the burden.  Britain suffered an almost total shutdown of business as protestors blockaded fuel refineries preventing fuel trucks from reaching their destinations.

 Britains protesters were particularly determined, perhaps due to the fact that its citizens pay more for gasoline and diesel fuel than any other European country.  Diesel is 55 percent more expensive in Britain than in France, for example.  And even though the fuel blockade caused hardships throughout Britain, Early opinion pollssuggested that most people endorsed the aims of the protestors, reported The Economist (September 16, 2000).

 Perhaps adding to the anger was the governments planned Climate Change Levy, an additional tax on fuel.  British citizens may balk at future climate change policies after witnessing first hand the costs of lower fuel availability.  As The Economist noted, schools were forced to close down, hospitals canceled all non-emergency operations, and morgues filled up.  There were the first signs of panic-buying of food in supermarkets across Britain, as it dawned on people that shops rely on deliveries by road.

Some people were ecstatic, however.  Charles Secrett, Executive Director of Friends of the Earth wrote in The Mirror (September 14, 2000) that the slow down suited him just fine.  I cycled to work today.  The streets were almost empty.  Air quality was better.  Pedestrians were breathing easier.  Children were safer.  Birds were singing.  I thought: Crisis, what crisis?. Fuel prices should be more expensive not less.

Little Progress in Lyon

A meeting of the subsidiary bodies of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ended with little progress being made on the major issues plaguing the global warming negotiations.  Indeed, no major breakthroughs had been reached by nations seeking to implement the emission reduction treaty, reported BNA Daily Environment Report (September 20, 2000). 

Despite the lack of success, Roger Ballentine, U.S. deputy assistant to the president, tried to put a positive spin on the negotiations.  The atmospherics were good, said Ballentine, and there was a general sense of accomplishment among U.S. negotiators.

Others were not so sanguine.  Another story in BNA (September 14, 2000) reports that Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, thinks that the amount of work remaining before COP-6 in the Hague is daunting.  There are several issues that must be worked out that are totally beyond the scope of the Lyon and Hague agendas.  She was confident, said BNA, that significant progress will be made going into the Hague talks, but the more complicated, politically charged discussions have not happened yet in any country.

European Hypocrisy

The ongoing controversy between the United States and the European Union over emissions trading reveals the hypocrisy of the global warming negotiations so far.  Slowing economic growth in the U.S. rather than global warming seems to be the primary goal of the EU negotiators. 

The U.S. wants maximum flexibility to meet its Kyoto targets.  The EU, on the other hand, wants to restrict the reductions achieved through international emission credit trading to 50 percent.  The remaining cuts would have to be achieved domestically.

David Wojick, writing for Electricity Daily (September 11, 2000), notes that electricity use in Britain, for instance, did not increase from 1990 to 1997 and in Germany it actually fell to 7 percent below 1990 levels during the same time.  In the U.S., on the other hand, electricity use increased 20 percent due to robust economic growth.

None of the EU countries have grown appreciably since 1990, as far as electric power usage is concerned, while all of the non EU umbrella group countries continue to develop rapidly, says Wojick.  The low growth EU is the big backer of Kyoto.  And the very slowest EU growers Germany and Britain are the loudest to demand that we (the U.S.) stop growing too.

Expectations Lowered for Lyon and the Hague

In preparation for the Sixth Conference of the Parties (COP-6) to the Climate Change Convention to be held in the Hague, November 13-24, subsidiary bodies are meeting in Lyon, France to hammer out agreements to be finalized at COP-6.

According to the BNA Daily Environment Report (September 6, 2000), “Some of the outstanding issues include accounting methods for determining whether governments are meeting their reduction commitments, establishment of a compliance mechanism, procedures for emission trading, and rules that would allow governments to claim emission credits for creating and maintaining carbon-absorbing sinks such as forests.”

Michael Zammit Cutajar, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is pessimistic. “The likelihood, and what I fear, is that the negotiators are so tied up in their tactical calculations that they might not want to let go before their meeting in the Hague,” Cutajar said.

U.S. official also expressed doubt that a deal would be reached at the Hague. At a briefing in London, Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Initiatives Roger Ballentine said that the Clinton-Gore Administration is committed to a global warming treaty and

pointed to its $4 billion budget proposal to fight global warming as evidence.

Ballentine said that the administration is optimistic that significant progress can be made at COP-6, “But if your question is will we finalize, wrap up, every issue at COP-6 then the answer to that has to be noThere is too much work left to be done to wrap it up in November,” he said (Reuters, September 5, 2000).

The Conservative Party in the United Kingdom has proposed abandoning the Governments energy tax known as the climate change levy, which is designed to help the UK reach its Kyoto commitments. According to Shadow Chancellor Michael Portillo, the tax plan was ill-conceived and would actually hurt the environment by driving British industries overseas where there are fewer environmental regulations. If elected, said Portillo, the Tories would scrap the plan (The Journal (Newcastle), September 1, 2000).

Also, the Engineering Employers Federation released a survey of 25 British companies located in Sheffield (a Labor stronghold) with energy bills larger than 100,000 pounds. The survey found that the climate change levy would increase these companies energy bills by an average of more than 400 pounds (approximately US $580) per employee. “The EEFs survey of engineering manufacturing companies in Sheffield shows that Labour are piling extra costs on to manufacturing business at a time when they can least afford it,” said shadow Chancellor Michael Portillo (The Independent (London), August 29, 2000).

The Kyoto Protocol and global warming are not, or at least not yet, shaping up as major issues in the presidential campaign. Republican nominee George W. Bush didnt mention them in his acceptance speech. Democratic nominee Albert A. Gore, Jr. said this: “On the issue of the environment, Ive never given up, Ive never backed down, and I never will. And I say it again tonight: we must reverse the silent, rising tide of global warming.”

The 2000 Republican Party Platform contains a long section on the environment, natural resources, property rights, federal lands, energy, agriculture, and transportation. Included is one paragraph on Kyoto: “As environmental issues become increasingly international, progress will increasingly depend on strong and credible presidential leadership. Complex and contentious issues like global warming call for a far more realistic approach than that of the Kyoto Conference. Its deliberations were not based on the best science; its proposed agreements would be ineffective and unfair inasmuch as they do not apply to the developing world; and the current administration is still trying to implement it, without authority of law. More research is needed to understand both the cause and the impact of global warming. That is why the Kyoto treaty was repudiated in a lopsided, bipartisan Senate vote. A Republican president will work with businesses and with other nations to reduce harmful emissions through new technologies without compromising America’s sovereignty or competitiveness – and without forcing Americans to walk to work.”

The 2000 Democratic Party platform gets a little more purple rhetorically: “And we must dramatically reduce climate-disrupting and health-threatening pollution in this country, while making sure that all nations of the world participate in this effort. Environmental standards should be raised throughout the world in order to preserve the Earth and to prevent a destructive race to the bottom wherein countries compete for production and jobs based on who can do the least to protect the environment. There will be no new bureaucracies, no new agencies, no new organizations. But there will be action and there will be progress. The Earth truly is in the balance – and we are the guardians of that harmony.

“Eight of the ten hottest years ever recorded have occurred during the past ten years. Scientists predict a daunting range of likely effects from global warming. Much of Florida and Louisiana submerged underwater. More record floods, droughts, heat waves, and wildfires. Diseases and pests spreading to new areas. Crop failures and famines. Melting glaciers, stronger storms, and rising seas. These are not Biblical plagues. They are the predicted result of human actions. They can be prevented only with a new set of human actions – big choices and new thinking.”

U.S. Proposes Carbon Sinks for Kyoto

The U.S. filed a proposal on August 1 to the United Nations office overseeing the Kyoto negotiations that would allow countries to get credit towards their Kyoto targets by using forests and crops to absorb carbon dioxide. The Clinton-Gore Administration estimates that the U.S. could receive credit for 300 million metric tons per year for carbon dioxide being stored in trees, crops and soil, accounting for nearly half of the reductions required by the Kyoto Protocol.

The administration said that “Given the growth in the economy and fuel use since 1990the only way to come anywhere near that target [7 percent below 1990 levels] is by adopting every possible strategy, including the agricultural approach,” according to the New York Times (August 2, 2000). It also noted that “In additionbringing farmers and foresters into the battle is likely to be crucial if the Senate, which has so far firmly opposed ratifying any international climate treaty, is to change its view.”

The EU opposes carbon sinks due to its relative scarcity of land for tree planting which would give the U.S. a distinct advantage. Japan, another country with limited space, wishes to meet its target by investing in forestry projects in the developing countries and possibly Australia.

Many environmental groups are also opposed to the proposal arguing that the U.S. should not rely on carbon sinks but rather should cut its use of oil and coal. It would seem that environmental activists are more concerned with preventing energy use than preventing global warming.

Christopher C. Horner, on behalf of several members of the Cooler Heads Coalition, is filing official comments on the draft National Assessment on Climate Change before the August 11 deadline. The comments charge that several violations of Federal Advisory Committees Act, such as the absence of the required Designated Federal Officer from several meetings, the closing of meetings to the public, and the failure to certify meeting minutes by the chairman of the advisory committee, were committed in the preparation of the report.

The Cooler Heads members are requesting that the final report not be released until it complies with FACA. The comments will be posted in the next few days at www.globalwarming.org and at www.cei.org.

Frontiers of Freedom and the Science and Environmental Policy Project are also filing joint comments on the NACCs scientific shortcomings. These should also be available on the web at www.ff.org and www.sepp.org.

On July 20, Frank E. Loy, the under secretary for global affairs at the U.S. State Department and chief global warming negotiator for the U.S., spoke at the Annual Conference of the American Bar Association about the status of the negotiations surrounding the Kyoto Protocol.

Loy prefaced his remarks by asking the audience of lawyers “Do you, the members of the bar, need to understand the Protocol and will you be able to bill your clients? (Because I know the suspense is killing you, let me just say that the answer to these last questions is an emphatic yes.)” While said jokingly, it is nonetheless true that lawyers love big, complex regulatory structures that require their services and fatten their wallets.

Loy was quite optimistic about the chances of getting an agreement that would be acceptable to the U.S. Senate. He even pointed out that we are closer than before since Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) a former skeptic on global warming, according to Loy, recently “acknowledged that the science has hardened considerably in the past decade and pledged to develop a domestic plan to deal with the problem.” He also pointed out that “Democrats and Republicans alike are proposing legislation to deal with climate change.”

One of the two major obstacles to getting an agreement is the desire of the EU that the U.S. “change our lifestyle as quickly and radically as possible,” he said. “Many in the EU believe that producing significant short-term pain and suffering is actually desirable, rather than something to be avoided.” The crux of the matter, according to Loy is that the EU is concerned that U.S. businesses “will enjoy a competitive advantage over European businesses that have been subjected to carbon taxes and extensive regulation.”

The other obstacle is developing country participation. Loy argues that since the developing countries are least able to adapt to climate change it is in their interest to come to an agreement. Loy also claimed that many of the key developing nations are already taking steps to reduce emissions and that those countries that “may lack the capacity to assume and implement legally binding targets” should “explore opportunities under the Clean Development Mechanism.”

And what is the role for lawyers in all this? “Like any sophisticated business transaction, each of these decisions [that companies must make about what to do about meeting climate change targets] will require legal advice about how to navigate a variety of domestic and international regulatory frameworks. Each transaction has the potential to involve litigation or administrative action.” Music to lawyers ears.

The NACCs Compliance Problems

Continuing White House stonewalling on the National Assessment on Climate Change has prompted another, even stronger letter from House Science Committee chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) and chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Ken Calvert (R-Cal.). Their July 20 letter raises even more questions about the National Assessments peer review and public comment requirements as specified under the 2000 VA-HUD Appropriations Act. The Office of Science and Technology Policys reply to two earlier letters from Sensenbrenner and Calvert was “inadequate and non-responsive,” and “raises more questions than answers.”

The conference report of the VA-HUD act requires that the “supporting research” for the National Assessment be “subject to peer review.” Only 18 days, however, were afforded for peer review and the letter sent to reviewers advised them that the primary purpose of the review was to “ensure technical accuracy of the documents,” noted Sensenbrenner and Calvert. “Apparently, these reviewers were not encouraged to address issues of substance or to question any aspects of the documents beyond accuracy issues.” Requests by the committee for memoranda regarding peer review process and comments of the peer reviewers have been ignored.

The conference report also requires that the “draft assessment” be “published in the Federal Register for a 60 day public comment period.” This requirement has not been met. As a result, Sensenbrenner and Calvert have demanded that the 60-day period not begin until the draft report is published in the Federal Register.

The National Assessment is also working on several Regional and Sectoral analysis reports, some of which have been completed, for the U.S. Global Change Research Program. OSTP has attempted to circumvent the conference report requirements for these reports by arguing that they “are not federal reports,” even though they were funded with federal money. “There is nothing in the conference report to suggest a distinction between federal reports” and “federally funded reports,” stated Sensenbrenner and Calvert.

The G-8 countries fell short of their lofty goal of setting a timetable for Kyoto enactment at their summit this month in Okinawa. Japan reportedly pushed for 2002, making it the most ambitious player present. The U.S. was said to be “reluctant to be so specific” due to domestic policy concerns and the impending presidential election (Japan Economic Newswire, July 23, 2000).

G-8 leaders vowed to “achieve a successful outcome at the COP6,” which will occur this November in the Hague, and to push renewable energy sources. Finally, the leaders promised to strengthen export credit agency guidelines to include greenhouse gas evaluations of transactions (BNA Daily Environment Report, July 25, 20000).

Although White House press releases spinned the meeting differently, little progress was made in international climate change policy. The G-8 summit revealed internal squabbling and fundamental disagreements that may carry over to the Hague.

Venerable British Petroleum, BP, has just kicked off a massive corporate rebranding initiative under the aegis “Beyond Petroleum.” The centerpiece of this campaign is an effort to move the companys revenue stream away from fossil fuel sales. The means? Pump-side Internet access which BP Chief Executive Sir John Browne hopes will help lift non-fuel sales to account for half of revenue.

Despite the new tagline and stunning new logo – a green, yellow, and white sunburst – environmentalists derided the change as “style over substance.” Greenpeace recommended that the company ought to have considered “a miserable polar bear on a melting ice pack” as a logo.

Browne, after playing up the rebrandings environmental focus at a press briefing, downplayed the rebrandings environmental focus to the business press: “Its all about increasing sales, increasing margins and reducing costs at the retail sites.”

White House Rebuffs Congressmen on National Assessment

The stench of the National Assessment has reached Congress. Representatives James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the committee, and Ken Calvert, chairman of the subcommittee on energy and the environment, wrote to Presidential Assistant on Science and Technology Neal Lane on June 7 about the controversial report.

Dr. Lanes failure to respond and the release of the draft report prompted a more explicit letter from the two, sent on June 28. This second letter asked that the National Science Foundation, “(1) promptly publish the corrected draft versions of the National Assessment Synthesis Report Overview and Foundation Report documents in the Federal Register; and (2) extend the public comment period to provide a minimum of 60 days thereafter.” The Foundation Report, 700 pages long, is the basis of the Synthesis Report Overview and is allegedly available, by appointment, at the NSFs headquarters in Virginia.

The congressmen also criticized the NSF for not establishing a public docket and for not making available the “publications and analyses” used in the report. Because the report available (purportedly) in Virginia and on the web is incomplete, missing figures, tables, and other elements, the congressmen label it “deficient and incomplete” and not yet ready for final public comment and review.

Dr. Lane responded to the lawmakers on June 30^th, addressing directly none of their concerns. He concluded simply: “I do not feel there is any need to alter the process that we devised” Translated: Full steam ahead; lets get this thing out the door in October and get our man into the White House.

The Department of Energy on July 10 provided a “wealth of documents” in response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the Cooler Heads Coalition.

After a first glance, Christopher C. Horner, counsel to the coalition, said that the documents provide evidence that the department was under strong political pressure from the White House to hurry production of the National Assessment so that the final version would be ready for release before the election. Horner also said that reviewers comments of the draft National Assessment from scientists at two of DOEs National Laboratories are “scathing.”

The Environmental Protection Agency continues to resist turning over relevant documents in response to the Coalitions FOIA requests, despite being under a federal court order to do so. EPAs attempts to obstruct and obfuscate have begun to resemble President Clintons celebrated statement that it depends on what the meaning of is is.

Finger-pointing continued in Washington over recent gasoline price spikes. While Vice President Gore shouts about collusion and price gouging by oil companies, a June 5 memo to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson identifies a number of more plausible reasons. Among them are regulatory actions undertaken by the Environmental Protection Agency, which initially requested the Federal Trade Commission investigation of possible collusion.

The memo by Melanie Kenderdine, acting director of policy at DOE, points to high consumer demand and low inventories of petroleum nationwide. In addition, Milwaukee and other upper Midwest cities are faced with “an RFG [reformulated gasolinerequired by EPA] formulation specific to the area that is more difficult to produce,” as well as specific refinery and pipeline problems. A June 16 report by the Congressional Research Service came to similar conclusions.

Kenderdine predicts that, “The first opportunity for any relief from this tight market situation will most likely be due to reduced seasonal demand this fall, when there will be a change back to less-stringent RFG performance specifications.”

In a June 9 letter to Secretary Richardson, Vice President Gore wrote that the memo “also implies the existence of an unexplained variation or price differential between RFG and conventional gas.In the light of these findings, it would appear appropriate that you forward your report, in full, to the Federal Trade Commission, for any action they deem appropriate.” The memo in no way implies what Gore asserted.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported on July 10 that more and more Europeans are fed up with high gasoline prices, which are now at or above $4 a gallon in most EU countries. In Germany, motorists are joining a protest movement called Jetzt Reichts (translated as Enough is Enough!). In the United Kingdom, a Dump the Pump gas boycott is being organized for August 1. The Post mentions that the “real culprit” is gasoline taxes “that account for about 80% of the price at the pump” compared to 25% in the U. S. The German Green Party continues to advocate raising the price to approximately $10 a gallon.

Taking their cue from Vice President Gores attacks on oil companies for increasing their profits by 500% in the last year, Representatives David Bonior (D-MI) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) intend to introduce the Gas Price Spike Act of 2000. It would prevent oil companies from reaping “excess profits” if enacted.

Historical data would be used to set a “reasonable” level of profits for individual companies. Profits more than five percent above that level would be taxed at a 100 percent rate. Said Rep. Bonior, “The threat of heavy taxation will send a clear signal to the oil companies that price gouging will not pay.”

Natural gas industry leaders have called on the next administration to reverse Clinton-Gore policies that have closed huge areas to gas exploration and development. New sources of natural gas will be needed to supply much higher demand expected in the near future.

The call to open federal lands and Outer Continental Shelf tracts to gas production that have been put off-limits by the current administration was made during the Natural Gas Summit, held in Colorado Springs on July 10, according to the BNA Daily Environment Report (July 11, 2000).

Dick Sharples, chairman of the Natural Gas Council and president of Andarko Energy Services, said that natural gas consumption is projected to rise from 22 trillion cubic feet in 2000 to 29 trillion cubic feet in 2010.

Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol have promoted the substitution of natural gas for coal to produce electricity because gas produces much less carbon dioxide per BTU than coal. However, environmentalists have also opposed industry efforts to expand sources of supply. The Clinton-Gore Administration has closed tens of millions of acres of federal land to exploration and has extended exploration leasing moratoriums on the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf of Mexico OCS. These conflicting policies now appear to be approaching a collision.

The European Unions Council of Environment Ministers have made several key decisions about the European Unions negotiating position at the upcoming sixth Conference of Parties (COP-6) to be held in the Hague, November 13-24.

According to BNAs Daily Environment Report (July 3, 2000), the ministers decided that financial penalties should be imposed on countries that exceed their greenhouse gas emission limits under the Kyoto Protocol. Second, the Council agreed that definite limits should be put on the use of carbon sinks to offset greenhouse gas emissions.

Third, the EU will oppose the inclusion of nuclear power in the Clean Development Mechanism. The communiqu instead called on COP-6 to “adopt a positive list of safe, environmentally sound eligible projects based on renewable energy sources, energy efficiency improvements and demand-side management in the fields of energy and transport.”

Gore Plans to Implement Kyoto Protocol If Elected President

Vice President Al Gore has announced the first part of his sweeping proposal to “develop and deploy the best technologies in the world to reduce our dependence on unreliable and expensive imported sources of oil; protect the country from the threat of climate change and disruptions in electrical power; and make our air and water cleaner to stop the spread of health problems caused by pollution, such as asthma. To innovators everywhere, Al Gore is saying — if you invest in America’s future, we will invest in you.”

Or in other words, if you wont support the Kyoto Protocol well buy your support. The plan is pork barrel politics at its worst. It would “dedicate part of the expected budget surplus to create a new National Energy Security and Environment Trust Fund,” that would “support private and public efforts to develop and deploy technologies that will reduce Americas dependence on big oil companies and on unreliable energy, to clean up our environment, grow our economy, and create new jobs.”

The “trust fund” would provide tax incentives families and small businesses that purchase energy efficient automobiles, homes, appliances and industrial equipment. It would also give subsidies to auto manufacturers to develop “a new generation of clean cars, trucks, buses and sport utility vehicles.”

Other beneficiaries of taxpayer-funded largesse would be electric utilities, renewable energy producers, farmers, public transportation, and labor unions. Part of the trust fund includes an “Energy Security and Environment Trust,” that would provide $68 billion to energy companies for the development of clean energy projects. Further details can be found at www.algore2000.com.

The Global Climate Coalition, a coalition of trade associations that are opposed to the Kyoto Protocol, praised the initiative. In a press release GCC executive director Glenn Kelly said, “Were very pleased to see candidate Gore endorsing the GCCs positive agenda of market-based solutions, innovative new technologies and increased efficiency and conservation.”

Its not surprising that Vice President Al Gores initiative would be a major financial boon to energy companies. According to a UPI (June 28, 2000) story, “The proposalto pay power plants to cut pollution was developed with the assistance of a Gore adviser who also works for large power companies that could get millions in taxpayer subsidies under the plan.”

The adviser, Kathleen McGinty, is a former Gore staffer and chairman of the Presidents Council of Environmental Quality under President Clinton. She now works for Troutman Sanders, “a law firm that represents several major U.S. power companies,” notes UPI. “Two of those clients American Electric Power and Southern Company confirmed Tuesday that McGinty is one of their consultants on environmental issues.”

McGinty defended herself saying, “I provide advice and have provided advice to anyone who asks me. Does the vice president ask for my views? Absolutely. Do people in the business community ask for my views? Absolutely. And is that anything new? Absolutely not.” It may not be new but it certainly doesnt look good. Taxpayers might think it wrong for a person who represents the interests of energy companies to help devise a plan that would transfer billions of dollars from taxpayers to those companies.

On June 21 the House of Representatives passed the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for FY2001. The bill once again includes the Knollenberg provision, which prohibits EPA from taking actions to implement the Kyoto Protocol. New report language clarifies the intent of the provision. An amendment offered by Rep. John Olver (D-Mass.) and adopted by the House on a 314 to 108 vote further clarifies that the provision does not prohibit any congressionally-authorized EPA programs.

According to the BNA Daily Environment Report (June 20, 2000), “no political breakthrough was reached,” at a week long meeting of the subsidiary bodies to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bonn, despite claims of “significant progress.”

Michael Zammit Cutajar, general secretary of the UNFCCC said that the meeting was successful in identifying obstacles to completing negotiations in The Hague at COP-6 in November. “A lot of work lies ahead,” Cutajar said. “Political leaders throughout the world will have to work at full capacity for the completion of an international strategy against global warming in order to reach an effective agreement in The Hague.”

There are still several areas of disagreement. The European Union and the United States have still not resolved their dispute on the extent to which countries should be allowed to use flexible mechanisms. Moreover, Germany has come out against the use of sinks and the use of nuclear power under the Clean Development Mechanism. Saudi Arabia has “proved to be the most obstinate opponent of any climate control strategy,” notes BNA.

EU May Not Reach Kyoto Targets

An analysis published by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change of five European countries has found that only one of them will meet the targets agreed to under the Kyoto Protocol. The study was done by John Selwyn Gummer, MP, former UK Environment Minister and Chairman of the environmental consulting firm, Sancroft International Ltd., and Robert Moreland, also of Sancroft.

The five countries studied were Germany, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Austria, and Spain. Of the five, only the United Kingdom is expected to reach its target.

The study attributes the UKs success to “fuel switching from coal to natural gas.” The UKs Kyoto target is to lower greenhouse gases by 12.5 percent below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012. Currently it is at 14.6 percent below.

Germany has also been successful in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, but will not likely meet its target of 21 percent below 1990 levels. Current levels are at 17 percent below. Germany lowered emissions by closing heavily polluting East German industries that werent financially viable. The other countries are nowhere near complying with their targets.

The freeze on raising the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards will remain in place for now. The Senate reached a compromise that would continue the freeze but would allow the Department of Transportation and the National Academy of Sciences to study changes in CAFE standards.

Senator Spence Abraham (R-Mich.) said that the compromise was “a big victory for Michigan” and Dan Becker, of the Sierra Club called it “a major victory for consumers and the environment” (Associated Press, June 19, 2000).