Politics

New Jersey/Seattle Guinea Pigs?

No, this story is not about how global warming is harming guinea pigs in New Jersey and Seattle. This is a story about a state and a city willing to become guinea pigs in the fight against global warming.

On April 17, New Jersey became the first state in the U.S. to impose CO2 reduction targets for itself. The plan calls for a reduction in greenhouse gases of 3.5 percent below 1990 levels by 2005. According to the Philadelphia Enquirer (April 18, 2000), “About a third of the reductions would come from energy-efficiency improvements in residential, commercial and industrial buildings. Another third would come from employing energy technologies such as biomass, wind and solar power. The rest would come from improvements in the transportation efficiency and waste management.”

The state itself plans on switching some of its transit buses to bio-fuel made up of part diesel and part soy vegetable oil, as well as extracting methane from old landfills.

Seattle is taking a more aggressive approach. It has pledged to reduce the citys greenhouse gas emissions to zero using renewable energy and energy efficiency. “Climate change is the worlds most urgent environmental challenge, but its also very much a local issue,” said Mayor Paul Schell. “In Seattle, we can

demonstrate that we take global warming seriously by ensuring that City Light (Seattles municipally owned utility) provides clean electrical energy.”

The city will meet its goal by relying on “existing hydropower and development of new wind, geothermal, solar and landfill gas facilities, as well as energy conservation measures,” reports the Environmental News Service (April 13, 2000). “If any fossil fuels are required to meet electricity demand, the City plans to offset the carbon emissions through other means such as forest protection.”

Enviro Groups Sued For Commercial Defamation

Western Fuels Association filed a suit against several environmental groups in Wyoming federal district court on April 17. The suit alleges that a full-page advertisement in the New York Times (see www.turnpoint.org/global.html), paid for by the Turning Point Project and signed by several environmental groups, constitutes “commercial defamation” as defined under the Section 43 of the Lanham Act.

The ad, which pictures a mosquito and asks “Global Warming how will it end?” claims that burning fossil fuels will increase violent hurricanes, disease carrying mosquitoes, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, drought, famine, disease, and so on. “They are attempting to portray electric generation from fossil fuels as a significant health risk, while in fact the opposite is true,” said Fred Palmer, general manager and CEO of Western Fuels.

The suit alleges that the defendants in the case, Friends of the Earth, Earth Island Institute, Ozone Action, Rainforest Action Network, and the International Center for Technology Assessment, receive money from corporations and organizations who promote alternative energies and who would gain financially from the demise of the use of fossil fuels. Friends of the Earth, for instance, receives funds from British Petroleum, which has substantial investments in solar energy. For more information, go to www.westernfuels.org.

Australia Vacillates on Kyoto

Although the country was able to secure an 8 percent rise in emissions in the Kyoto Protocol, Australia may still be hedging its bets on Kyoto implementation. The country’s diplomats recently managed to water down the language in a communiqu from the South Pacific Forum that would have demanded that all industrialized countries meet or beat Kyoto targets, according to Electricity Daily (April 28, 2000).

Foreign Affairs Minister John Downer fears that if countries are unable to meet their Kyoto obligations, the protocol may “unravel.” Many Kyoto implementation details still must be sorted out this year at The Hague meeting, making it even more likely that countries will miss their fast-approaching targets for 2002. To sidestep this embarrassment and avoid undermining the protocol, the SPF’s letter now calls for the protocol to be met “at the earliest possible date,” leaving representatives of several smaller Pacific islands, which are concerned about rising oceans, a bit hot-headed.

Gutsy CEOs

While many industries are falling all over themselves to appease environmental activists, some CEOs are proving that they still have a spine. In addition to Lee Raymond, chairman of Exxon Mobil, two other oil executives have recently spoken up about the Kyoto Protocol.

Ron Brenneman, president of Petro-Canada, told his companys annual meeting that he would ignore Kyoto if it threatened the companys finances. “Kyoto, in my opinion, is the wrong way to deal with this whole issue,” he said. “We are not about to curtail growth, because I think shareholders have invested in this company for shareholder value, not to try and solve a global problem” (Edmonton Sun, May 2, 2000).

At Imperial Oils annual shareholders meeting, CEO Bob Peterson told the audience that Kyoto is “bad science and flawed public policy.” There are “too many theories chasing not enough facts to support the theory of global climate change.” Several protesters at the meeting threw pennies at the CEO, chanting, “A penny per shareholder, thats all it costs. Are you willing to pay a penny to clean up gas?”

Peterson went on to say, “Is this problem real and, if so, how serious is it? Is human activity a factor, or is it simply a normal variation in the Earths climate? Meeting the Kyoto targets means that as Canadians we have effectively agreed to limit the size of the Canadian economy” (Toronto Star, April 21, 2000).

 Assessing the National Assessment

The U.S. Global Climate Research Program is about to release its National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Change. One of the technical reviewers, David Wojick, president of ClimateChangeDebate.Org, has written his own assessment of the National Assessment.

Wojick notes that the release of the report seems to be timed for maximum political impact. Even though the USGCRP is required to make a report every four years, it has not done so since its formation in 1990. Only now, during an election year when one of the presidential candidates is known for his strong pro-global warming views, is the USGCRP making its voice heard.

This is also the year that the sixth conference of the parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change will meet to finalize negotiations of the Kyoto Protocol. The National Assessment will put pressure on the U.S. Senate to ratify whatever comes out of those negotiations.

Wojick also argues that the two climate models used in the report “consistently give extreme forecasts,” relative to the “available dozen or so global climate models.” This problem extends beyond global average temperatures, says Wojick. “Regional variability, the occurrences

of extreme events, and other climate change variables are also exaggerated in these models.”

The report also exaggerates future emissions scenarios. “While technically there is no such thing as a worst case emissions scenario, theirs is among the most extreme the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ever considered,” says Wojick. “In fact the IPCC has subsequently abandoned forecasting emissions scenarios, because the technology of energy production over the next 100 years is completely unpredictable.”

Finally, Wojick notes that the National Assessment report glosses over or ignores the potential benefits of global warming “many of which are discussed in the underlying studies.” For example, “The models predict that over half of the present desert land in the Southwest will become agriculturally productive without irrigation, due to increased precipitation. This fact is not even mentioned as a potential benefit,” says Wojick.

Some Utilities Trying to Revive Early Credits Legislation

Faced with hundreds of billions of dollars in added costs from the Environmental Protection Agencys proposed New Source Review regulations, the Edison Electric Institute and several major member companies have started lobbying key members of Congress to revive Kyoto early action credits legislation. Apparently, some utilities have decided that if they fail to stop New Source Review, then they should find some way to benefit financially.

A number of meetings between top EEI officials and members of Congress have been reported. Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, has apparently been encouraged to revive the early action credits bill sponsored by Smiths predecessor as chairman, the late Sen. John Chafee (R-RI).

Few details have emerged, but it is clear that EEIs gambit is opposed by many of its member companies. These companies understand that early action credits makes implementation of the Kyoto Protocol inevitable (Energy Daily, April 4, 2000).

Greenpeace, BP-Amoco Clash Again

Despite green rhetoric and obeisance to global warming by its CEO, Sir John Browne, BP-Amoco is increasingly under attack from environmentalists and Greenpeace in particular.

At BPs annual shareholders meeting on April 13, Greenpeace an a coalition of “socially responsible” investors headed by Trillium Asset Management introduced a resolution calling on BP to stop its $600 million Northstar field in the Arctic Ocean of Alaska and to redirect the money to solar energy development.

The resolution further directed BP to cease lobbying to open ANWR to oil exploration and to cease all further exploration in Alaskas North Slope.

Thirteen percent of proxy votes cast, representing about 7 percent of the total share register, were in favor of the resolution, a stunning result for a nuisance resolution. Previous similar shareholders resolutions have received only 1 or 2 percent.

Greenpeace representatives were ecstatic. “Im shocked and Im very pleased,” said Matthew Spencer of Greenpeace. “Its unprecedented. Theres never been that level of support for an environmental resolution this side or the other side of the Atlantic . Following this vote they (the board) are going to have to come back with a plan.”

Sir John Browne responded by saying that BP is “the worlds largest solar company,” and is expanding its solar business rapidly (World Wire, April 13, 2000).

Nothing NOVA Under the Sun

PBS vehicles NOVA and Frontline, whose “balance” typically extends to well-timed sops to Congressional critics, garnered advance plaudits for their evenhanded look at global warming, “Whats up with the weather?” Even the Washington Post assigned a reporter either ultimately swayed by the absence of malice or truly coming to the party with no preset agenda. His Style-page preview promised low-level teeth gnashing for Cooler Heads opting to tune in.

While NOVA/Frontline dropped enough hints to terrify any fool into commuting to a World Bank riot by bicycle, the show did not directly answer its own question: Whats up with the weather? The program included the requisite video cavalcade of severe weather juxtaposed with expressions of economic concern.

The surface temperature record sufficed as the ultimate arbiter of climatic trends without any discourse on its serious shortcomings. Temperatures and precipitation “different than normal” were presented as persuasive evidence that man is warming the planet. And dissenters were presented as “a small band” of unenlightened “skeptics,” though their ranks were ably represented by Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, Fred Palmer and others.

Alarming temperature projections extrapolated from a select past few years predicted Venus on the Potomac. Then came red heat lines emanating from a depiction of the earths surface, closely resembling a barbecue. Photojournalistic balance neither preceded nor followed. “Industry science” was presented as such, with no mention of the tremendous boodle enticing Warmer scientists. Apologies for the weakness of models were allowed, but not the blistering assessment they deserve.

While the show came down on the side that mankind is causing global warming, it took a surprisingly critical look at possible solutions. With nuclear power and even hydropower ruled out by environmentalists, there arent any practical alternatives to fossil fuels in the short run.

Also made clear was the fact that if India, China, and other developing countries are going to advance economically, then they are going to have to burn a lot more coal and oil.

Australian Minister Calls For Compliance With Kyoto

Calling the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions “inevitable,” Australias Federal Minister for the Environment, Robert Hill told an audience at a conference in Sydney that defeating Kyoto now would only lead to harsher emission reduction targets in the future. “There, of course, would be no guarantee that this new process would take into account our national circumstances in the way we were able to achieve in Kyoto.

“There is likely to be an ever-increasing demand for governments around the world, and the people they represent, to take action,” said Hill. “And the science which has driven this global call for action is becoming more certain, rather than less certain” (Sydney Morning Herald, March 31, 2000).

Norways Government Falls on Anti-Kyoto Vote

After a vote of no confidence on March 8, Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik announced the resignation of his government. The vote was called after a controversy erupted over whether to construct natural gas fired power plants. The government, which opposed the construction, argued that the plants would release too much CO2 and said that construction should be delayed until cleaner technology becomes available.

The opposition, a coalition of conservatives and Labour, favored immediate construction of the plants. They argued that other alternatives, such as further hydroelectric development or importing electricity produced by coal or nuclear power, were unsatisfactory. Environment News Service reported on March 9 that a leading Oslo newspaper, Dagsavisen, had revealed that the government had appointed a secret committee to explore the possibility of electricity rationing if voluntary conservation measures failed. Norways government is the first to fall over its support for the Kyoto Protocol.

Cooler Heads Sues EPA

The Cooler Heads Coalition, a group of two dozen policy institutes and other non-profit organizations, filed suit on March 13 against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the EPA from continuing to withhold documents in its possession, in violation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The Cooler Heads FOIA requests date back to the early summer of 1999 and seek documents relating to apparent “backdoor implementation” of the Kyoto Protocol. The Cooler Heads specifically sought information relating to EPAs “global warming” and “climate change” policies, the Business Council for a Sustainable Energy Future, Climate Change Initiative, emissions trading schemes, and the Paperwork Reduction Act. These FOIA requests seek paperwork documenting the EPAs efforts to circumvent agency authority and congressional intent.

Cooler Heads Counsel Christopher C. Horner alleged in the complaint that EPA delayed acting on the Coalitions request for a fee waiver for seven months, even though such requests are routinely granted to non-profit organizations. Horner discovered through other FOIA requests that the only fee waiver requests rejected during 1999 were those sought by the Cooler Heads.

EPAs attempts to withhold the requested information, said Horner, indicates that it is well aware that its actions may well violate the Knollenberg restrictions, a limitation placed upon federal agencies that they take no actions to implement the Kyoto Protocol until it is submitted to and ratified by the Senate.

“Given that the Administration has signed Kyoto but shown no interest in permitting the Senate to debate it, it would appear EPA would prefer to continue these impermissible activities, effectively usurping the Senates constitutional duty of advice and consent regarding the implementation of international treaties,” said Horner.

Can EPA Regulate CO2 Emissions?

For two years, the Environmental Protection Agency and Congressional oversight committees have argued over whether the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In a recent letter, Congressmen David McIntosh (R-Ind.) and Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) told EPA General Counsel Gary Guzy that, “We are more convinced than ever that the CAA does not authorize EPA to regulate CO2.”

The EPA has asserted that it does, however. Former EPA General Counsel Jonathan Z. Cannon said in a memorandum that “pollutants” that fall under EPAs jurisdiction include “any physical, chemical, biological, or radioactive substance or matter that is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.” Congress was understandably concerned that the EPA had assumed de facto authority to implement the Kyoto Protocol under this definition.

Congressmen McIntosh and Calvert countered saying that, “The term air pollutant does not automatically apply to any substance emitted into the ambient air. Such a substance must also be an air pollutant agent” and “EPA has never determined that,” they said.

“Furthermore, in view of the well-known fact that CO2 is a benign substance and the foundation of the planetary food chain, we are appalled by the Administrations insistence that EPA might be able to regulate CO2 as a toxic or hazardous air pollutant” (www.weathervane.org).

Carbon Tax in England

Great Britains Prime Minister Tony Blair has said that his country will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels by the 2008-2012 time period, a larger commitment than that agreed to under the Kyoto Protocol. To meet that target, the Blair government proposed the Climate Change Levy that would tax the use of fossil fuels. The tax has met with stiff opposition from industry, which has either opposed it outright or asked for special exemptions.

The Confederation of British Industry, for example, has noted that the Labour government has raised taxes on business by about 5 billion pounds per year since it took office in 1997. “The priority of this Budget [should be] to ease business worries over pressures such as the Climate Change Levy and the road fuel duty escalator,” said CBIs president, Sir Clive Thompson (Times of London, March 3, 2000).

To resolve the controversy, Blair has introduced a CO₂ emissions trading scheme, but businesses have said that they will not participate unless there is a reward, such as an exemption from the Climate Change Levy or a cut in other taxes. “For a trading system to work, there has to be an incentive for companies to put themselves on the block by agreeing to targets. Without incentives, it will be very hard to get a system going,” said Chris Fay, chairman of the governments advisory committee on business and the environment (Financial Times, February 28, 2000).

India Should Oppose Emission Targets, Says Environment Group

A new report, “Green Politics: Global Environmental Negotiations,” by the Centre for Science and Environment, has been presented to Indias President Narayanan. The India-based environmental group, argues that international environmental agreements are “skewed” in favor of developed countries.

The Centres director, Anil Aggarwal, argues that the developed countries only focus on issues that concern them in international environmental treaties while ignoring the interests of developing countries. “Not a single government agency, environmentalist or academician has a full picture of what is happening at these environmental negotiations,” said Aggarwal.

President Clinton will be visiting India this spring, and he is expected to raise the issue of Indias participation in the Kyoto Protocol. Aggarwal advised President Narayanan to reject all offers from Clinton, “Since it would compromise development in Third World countries” (Times of India, March 3, 2000).

EPAs Underhanded Regulation

On November 3, 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency filed suit against several electric utilities and the Tennessee Valley Authority, claiming that they were guilty of violations of the Clean Air Act at 17 power plants dating as far back as 1979.

Under the CAAs New Source Review (NSR), power plants that make major modifications are required to install pollution control devices. Routine maintenance, repair, and replacement are excluded from the NSR provisions, however. Moreover, EPA has assumed a life span for utilities of 55 to 65 years during which the NSR provisions would not apply. The utilities argued that the actions for which they have been cited were indeed routine maintenance and repair, and until now were treated as such by the EPA. They feel that the EPA has arbitrarily reinterpreted of its own rules.

Congressman David McIntosh (R-Ind.), chairman of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, agrees with the utilities. An aide for McIntosh pointed out that power plant equipment is “used at high temperatures and under extreme pressure with chemical compounds that are corrosive, and it is not surprising that the equipment needs maintenance or replacement.” It would be bad practice it these utilities “did not replace the worn-out equipment with parts that rectify the design flaws of the original equipment,” he said (BNA Daily Environment Report, March 8, 2000).

McIntosh has submitted a letter with questions to the EPA to determine whether its “actions against the utilities may conflict with EPAs own understanding of the CAA and its regulations.” McIntosh expressed concern “that EPAs actions may be motivated by what might be called the Kyoto agenda and ideological animus against coal.”

Alternative Fuel Bill Fails to Meet Goals

Replacing gasoline with alternative fuels as a major automobile fuel has been touted as a major component of any plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act in 1992, which requires a 10 percent reduction in the use of petroleum-based fuels by 2000 and a 30 percent reduction by 2010. The Government Accounting Office has just released a report stating that those goals will not be reached.

This is because, “Drivers find alternative fuels such as ethanol and natural gas too costly and difficult to find,” according to Reuters (February 15, 2000). The report states, “The costs for alternative vehicles are often higher because consumer demand for them is not large enough to achieve economies of scale in production.”

Reuters also notes that, “While gasoline prices are at record highs, the GAO said that even if crude oil prices reached $40 a barrel, alternative fuels share of the market for transportation fuels would not increase.”

Clinton Releases Global Warming Budget

The Clinton-Gore Administrations FY2001 budget is laden with global warming pork and flouts the Knollenberg provision that prohibits implementation of the Kyoto Protocol prior to Senate ratification. The budget includes $2.4 billion to combat global warming and an additional $1.7 billion for global warming research.

Included in this sum is $289 million “to develop technologies that convert crops and other biomass into clean fuels and other products,” and over $200 million “to promote the export of clean energy technologies to developing nations.” The budget also contains $1.4 billion “to develop and deploy renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies for the buildings, transportation, industry and utility sectors; and to research coal and natural gas efficiencies and carbon sequestration,” and $85 million for state and local governments to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollutants.

Finally, the budget includes a massive outlay of tax credits of $4 billion over the next 5 years and $9 billion over the next 10 years to “consumers who purchase energy efficient products and for producers of energy from renewable sources.” The program is known as the Climate Change Technology Initiative. A summary of the budget can be found at www.whitehouse.gov.

Automakers Begin to Cut CO₂ Emissions in Europe

While it has received little notice in this country, major automakers have begun to reduce CO₂ emissions in cars sold in the European Union, under an agreement between the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) and the EU. According to the voluntary agreement, “Compliance with this target translates for the European automobile industry into an average CO₂ reduction of 25 percent for newly registered cars, compared to 1995.”

The automakers state that “This target will mainly be achieved by technological developments affecting different car characteristics and market changes linked to these developments. In particular, ACEA will aim at a high share to the point of 90 percent of new cars sold being equipped with CO₂ efficient direct injection gasoline and diesel technologies.”

This stated ability to achieve lower CO₂ emissions would seem to conflict with the arguments advanced by automakers last fall in asking Congress to continue the freeze on raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards (CAFE). The Senate voted to maintain the freeze on a 55-40 vote.

In a December debate on monitoring CO₂ emissions, several members of the European Parliament expressed their lack of faith in voluntary agreements. The parliament then voted 460-20 to instruct the European Commission to produce a plan to force compliance if the voluntary agreement fails. ACEAs members include Daimler-Chrysler, Ford of Europe, General Motors-Europe, and other major European automakers.

House Members Lecture Speaker about Global Warming

Inside EPA has acquired a letter to the Speaker of the House signed by about 30 Democratic House members asking for immediate action on global warming and urging the Speaker “to ensure that the House refrain from using the appropriations process to block sensible efforts to address this serious issue.”

The letter claims that, “There is no longer credible scientific debate over whether climate change is, in fact, occurring.” The signers, led by California Democrats George Miller and Henry Waxman, cite the recent National Research Council report to support their claim, even though it says nothing of the sort.

Additionally the letter pointed out that several companies have left the Global Climate Coalition. Why this is important is not clear. The congressmen request that appropriations bills be free of “anti-environmental” riders, such as the Knollenberg provision.

BP-Amocos Troubles

Environmental pressure groups have lavished praise on BP-Amoco for taking what they claimed was a principled stand on global warming. When BP CEO, Sir John Browne, announced that he believed that mans industrial activities were heating up the planet and that his company was leaving the Global Climate Coalition the Greens claimed a major victory.

But BPs capitulation has not freed it from criticism. It seems their so-called Green friends are attacking them with more zeal than ever. First, BP (now BP Amoco) is being harassed at its own shareholders meetings. A resolution was filed by a group of investors that calls for the company to cancel its Northstar project as well as to cease all lobbying to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

The group argued that these activities must be stopped to protect the environment and to prevent global warming. The group of investors, which calls itself Sane BP, is made up of Greenpeace, the US Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG), and “socially responsible” investors in the United States and Britain. Trillium Asset Management Corporation, an investment firm that specializes in “socially responsible” investing, joined the effort.

Greenpeace senior analyst Iain MacGill said that, “Despite these public pronouncements [in support of taking action on global warming] BP Amoco continues to pursue risky oil exploration in the pristine and vulnerable Arctic Ocean and Wildlife Refuge. It doesnt add up so we are giving investors a voice and a choice” (Environment News Service, January 26, 2000).

Greenpeace has also applauded the U.S. Federal Trade Commissions decision to oppose the merger of BP Amoco and Atlantic Richfield Corp (ARCO). “The FTC has the obligation and the authority to examine environmental threats presented by mergers,” said MacGill, “As for BP Amoco, we ask why a company whose stated goal is to provide energy without damaging the environment is pursuing more Arctic oil and fueling global warming” (U.S. Newswire, February 2, 2000).

In other BP-related news, the corporation has been handed a maximum criminal penalty of $500,000 by U.S. District Judge James Singleton for failing to report the illegal disposal of hazardous waste on Alaskas North Slope

The company has also been ordered to pay $15 million over the next five years to “establish a nationwide environmental management system designed to prevent future violations.” This is in addition to the $6.5 million that BP Amoco agreed to pay in civil penalties (Environment News Service, February 2, 2000).

Global Warming Activists Agitate Iowans

The Washington, D.C.-based green activist group, Ozone Action, has been protesting the lack of attention paid to global warming in the presidential campaign. They have disrupted the debates between the Democratic presidential candidates and carried around a 25-foot inflatable ear of corn with a banner saying “Drought Kills Corn.” One activist was even interrogated by the secret police after getting too close to Vice President Al Gore.

They also convinced several prominent Iowans into signing a letter urging the candidates to present detailed plans on how they would deal with global warming. Thirty scientists and several elected officials have signed the letter. Neither of the two scientists mentioned in an Associated Press article (January 19, 2000) are climatologists. Jim Colbert is an associate professor of botany and Ricardo Salvador, an associate agronomy professor at Iowa State University. If Ozone Actions past is a guide, then very few if any of the signatories have any expertise on climate matters.

Kyotos Last Gasp?

Is the Kyoto Protocol nearing the end of the road? With the President refusing to submit it to the Senate for ratification, knowing it would almost certainly be defeated, the question of whether it is still viable is relevant.

Grist Magazine (www.gristmagazine.com) an online publication, published a debate on January 17, 2000 on whether Kyoto is dead between David Victor, a Senior Fellow in Science and Technology at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Dan Lashof, Senior Scientist in the Natural Resources Defense Councils Air and Energy Program.

Victor argues that the protocol is dead. No action is likely before the November elections, and even if the next administration makes ratification a top priority it would be 2003 before the process is completed. That would leave five years to meet the Kyoto targets.

“The problem,” says Victor, “is that most of the technologies that use fossil fuels are long-lived the stock of automobiles, for example, has a lifetime of about two decades; most buildings last even longer.” We could meet the Kyoto targets, said Victor, “but only if large fractions of the existing capital stock were retired before the end of their useful lives, which would be wasteful and extremely expensive.”

Lashof is more optimistic. He argues that Kyoto is moving ahead as planned and that the obstacles to its final triumph are largely fabricated by the opposition. He claims that Europe is moving forward with implementing Kyoto, although Victor says that Europe is all talk and little action. Lashof also claims that “industry opposition to Kyoto is fracturing.” Moreover, the fact that the U.S. economy has had strong growth rates over the last two years without a rise greenhouse gas emissions shows that we can meet Kyotos targets at little cost. (He fails to mention that lower energy consumption was largely due to mild winters.) Finally, Lashof claims that public opinions polls show strong public support for Kyotos goals, and the public gets what it wants.

Warning: Buying This Car May be Dangerous to Your Health

The European Union has issued a directive requiring passenger cars sold within its borders to carry a label showing its fuel economy and levels of carbon dioxide emissions. “[T]he provision of accurate, relevant, and comparable information on the specific fuel consumption and CO₂ emissions of passenger cars may influence consumer choice in favor of those cars which use less fuel and thereby emit less CO₂, thereby encouraging manufacturers to take steps to reduce the fuel consumption of the cars they manufacture,” the commission said.

Member states will be required to make the directive national law by January 18, 2001. By December 31, 2003, they will be required to submit a report on the laws effectiveness (BNA Daily Environment Report, January 19, 2000).