Politics

Court Ruling Defeats Kyoto

In May the federal appeals court invalidated the Environmental Protection Agencys standards for ozone and particulate matter on the grounds that they constituted an “unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.” According to Bonner Cohen in an article in Electricity Daily (June 28, 1999) this ruling also thwarts the “administrations plans to implement the Kyoto Protocol by regulatory means.” Cohen points out that “the manmade sources of ozone and particulate matter automobiles, coal-fired electric utilities, manufacturing plants, etc. are the same ones that produce manmade greenhouse gases.”

Cohen argues that the EPAs ozone/particulate standard was a “regulatory scheme that would also allow it to control emissions of greenhouse gases, even without Senate ratification of the global warming treaty.” This is right in line with other actions by the administration and the EPA. Cohen reminds us of an internal EPA document, titled Climate Change Action Plan that “contained no fewer than 39 different taxes and fees on energy the administration could impose under existing statutes, without having to get Congressional approval.” And the administration continues to try and bypass the Senate ratification in its attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“The purpose of the whole exercise” was to “force the nations major metropolitan areas to reduce levels of ozone and particulates and greenhouse gases all within the same regulatory framework,” says Cohen. “Had the court not faulted the way EPA arrived at its new standardsthe country could well be on the way to implementing a treaty the Senate will probably never ratify.”

Global Warming Causes Extreme Legislative Fury

Several bills related to global warming are being promoted on Capitol Hill. The most recent is the Administrations package of energy efficiency taxes, introduced by Rep. Bob Matsui (D-Cal.). The bill is a $3.6 billion plan to give tax breaks to consumers who buy energy efficient homes, cars, water heaters, and rooftop solar systems. It also encourages the use of other renewable energies (U.S. Newswire, June 29, 1990).

Frank Pallone (D- N.J.) will introduce a bill that would create an emission trading system amongst electric power plants with caps on emissions. According to the BNA Daily Environment Report (July 2, 1999) the “bill would impose a cap and allow trading of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide emission allowances.” Also, it “would amend the Federal Power Act and require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to set standards for those pollutants cap levels.”

Greens Release a Slew of Global Warming Reports

In what appears to be a major concerted effort, several Green activist organizations have released reports warning about the dangers of global warming, and the media are reporting them with the same seriousness they would peer-reviewed scientific papers. Greenpeace (see below) has released a report that claims that coral reefs could disappear in the next 100 years.

The Environmental Defense Fund (www.edf.org) is claiming that New York City could experience serious problems resulting from climate change. For example, sea level rise could threaten lower Manhattan with “frequent flooding by the end of the next century.” The report gets even more specific. “The foundations of Battery Park City and the World Trade Center would be flooded regularly. The East River would flood Bellevue Medical Center, the FDR Drive and East Harlem between 96^th and 114^th Streets. Storms would flood much of Coney Island, submerging or creating islands of residential communities there and in Staten Island nearly annually,” and so on.

The report also predicts that the number of days over 90 degrees Fahrenheit would increase from 13 to between 38 and 80 days per year, leading to increased mortality due to heat stress among the elderly. It also claims that children could be at risk “because of health risks due to air pollution.”

Finally the report argues that “global warming may increase the frequency of extreme weather events, including both prolonged periods with little precipitation and periods of heavy downpour and snowfall, leading both to more droughts and more inland floods.” One scenario described by the report could have 100-year floods occurring every 3 to 11 years in New York City by 2100. Higher sea levels could also push salt water further up the Hudson River threatening the citys water supply.

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change (www.pewclimate.org) has also released a report claiming that temperature rise due to manmade greenhouse gas emissions could occur more rapidly than previously thought. According to the report, the presence of SO2 in the atmosphere serves to cool the planet. But SO2 is regulated to reduce acid rain deposition. As more countries restrict the emission of SO2, temperatures could rise.

The report says that the 1996 edition of the IPCC report used predictions of SO2 emissions from 1992 which projected a doubling of SO2 over the next century. The new projections show only a slight rise in emissions for the next 100 years. Eileen Claussen, executive director of the Pew Center said, “the data and likely impacts outlined in this study should encourage concrete steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” (BNA Daily Environment Report, June 30, 1999).

Red Cross Sees Global Warming Green

It is no secret that the global warming scare has become a cash cow for many groups and individuals. Green groups use the issue to convince contributors to give larger donations and scientists of many disciplines try to make their work relevant to global warming in order to get a share of the federal governments yearly $2 billion global warming giveaway.

Now a major humanitarian organization, Red Cross International, has jumped on the bandwagon. A new report by the Red Cross argues that global warming will increase major disasters, and that the Red Cross will need more money to pay for it. The report claims that there will be more droughts and that “marginal areas” will become “uninhabitable” in 20 years. It also says that the “one in 50 year hurricane may return one in ten years.” Disappearing mountain glaciers will cause rivers to dry up and there will be changes in disease patterns affecting millions (The Electricity Daily, July 2, 1999).

The Red Cross does many good things, but adopting the most extreme scenarios of the radical green movement to raise money diminishes its credibility. It would do well to consult the scientific literature. There is no evidence of an increase of more extreme weather, more droughts, more floods or any of the other scenarios presented by the Red Cross.

Bill to Ban Early Action Crediting

Recent attempts to implement the Kyoto Protocol have come under the guise of giving emission credits to companies that voluntarily engage in reducing CO₂ emissions. The first proposed bill of this type was introduced in the Senate by Senators John Chafee (R-R.I.), Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Connie Mack (R-Fla.). Another “credit for early action” bill is expected to be introduced soon in the House by Rick Lazio (R-N.Y.) and Calvin Dooley (D-Cal.).

In response to these bills and other actions by the Clinton-Gore Administration, Representative David McIntosh (R-IN) has introduced a bill, “Stand up for Small Business, Family Farms and the U.S. Constitution” (H.R. 2221). The bill explains that “credit for early action” legislation constitutes implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, and would pave the way to ratification by building a “pro-Kyoto business constituency.”

This would occur because companies that participate in the program would receive “credits potentially worth millions of dollars but which would have no actual cash value unless the Kyoto Protocol, or a comparable domestic regulatory program, were ratified or adopted,” according to Mr. McIntosh.

The bill would also prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating CO2 as a pollutant. The bill points out that, “When the Congress enacted and amended the Clean Air Act, it did not delegate to the EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide. Such regulation would constitute a usurpation of legislative power” as well as constituting implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. The bill says that, “no Federal Agency has authority to promulgate regulations to limit emissions of carbon dioxide unless a law is enacted after the date of enactment of this Act that specifically grants such authority.”

Finally the bill would make permanent the prohibitions set forth in the Knollenberg provision that prevents the use of federal funds to implement or contemplate the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.

GAO: Clinton Climate Report Flawed

The Clinton Administration is required by law to submit a “Report to Congress on Federal Climate Change Expenditures.” But, according to the General Accounting Office, the report is not really useful. The report states that “discussion of climate change activities and the performance goals set out in the report are organized by program or group of programs,” which “does not correspond to either the line items in the presidents budget nor completely to the tables in the report itself on spending by program or program element.”

The GAO comments that this limits the reports usefulness. Users of the report “cannot identify line items in the presidents budget, for example, those with large dollar amounts or those for which an increase in funding is being requested. Nor can users easily identify in the report what activities are planned and what performance goals have been established” (The Electricity Daily, June 11, 1999).

Deadlocked Bonn Meeting Ends

A conference held in Bonn, Germany to lay the groundwork for the upcoming 5^th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP5), ended on June 11 with little progress to report.

The European Union has played a very proactive role in the negotiations with several proposals. For example, the EU has called “for broader faster action and identifying priority sectors.” It also presented a European Commission Communication on “reflecting environmental policies in other sector-specific policies, particularly those with a direct bearing on the climate (energy, taxation, transport, agriculture, industry).” The EU also continued to push for “a system to police compliance with the undertakings,” and the creation of “a compliance system that is comprehensive, consistent, uniform, efficient and effective.”

There appears to be a slight softening among developing countries regarding their participation. One group of countries, which includes Korea, Argentina, and Mexico, said they would be willing to pursue greenhouse gas policies. Most developing countries, including China, continue to oppose commitments of any sort. The OPEC countries continue to work to prevent implementation of the Kyoto Protocol (Europe Environment, June 15, 1999).

The EU and the U.S. continue to butt heads over flexible mechanisms. The EU wants to limit their use to 50 percent of total emissions reductions, while the U.S. wants unlimited trading. Frank Loy, U.S. under secretary of state for global affairs, argues that the negotiations could come crashing down unless significant progress is made in the next few years.

Loy argued that flexible mechanisms would greatly reduce the cost of complying with the Kyoto Protocol, and would allow for developing country participation. Said Loy, “Eventually capital transfers under the Kyoto Protocol will dwarf those from official assistance.” (Financial Times, June 15, 1999).

Global Warming: A Matter of Faith?

The National Council of Churches is launching a year-long interfaith campaign to garner support for action against global warming. The campaign will focus on four states. According Richard Killmer, environmental justice director for the NCC, the states “have been chosen for specific reasons,” — Michigan because of the auto industry, Iowa because it holds the first presidential caucuses, and West Virginia and Pennsylvania because of their fossil fuel sectors.

The Interfaith groups are planning to lobby legislators, unions, and business leaders, getting churches involved in energy conservation, and placing opinion pieces in local media. (Greenwire, June 11, 1999). See www.webofcreation.org/NCC/Workgrp.html.

“Early Action” Bill Postponed

Rep. Rick A. Lazio (R-N.Y.), who’s weighing a run for Senate, postponed introduction of an “early action credit” legislation to meet with opponents of the idea. Lazios decision was prompted when David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union, sent him an “urgent memorandum” expressing deep concerns from the “entire conservative community” about the bill. Keene urged Lazio to “seriously consider the enormous political and policy downsides of supporting [the bill] . . . I would be surprised if those conservative leaders whom you are currently courting in New York do not share our view on this.”

OR Senate: Dont Implement Kyoto

The Oregon Senate has approved a bill barring new rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions until the federal government ratifies the Kyoto Protocol. Supporters of the Oregon measure call it financial protection for state businesses and communities threatened by the global warming treaty. Environmentalists called the legislation a regressive move in a traditionally green state (States News Service, June 22, 1999).

Implementation Sans Ratification

A leaked EPA document dated April 23, describes an April 7 meeting between EPA and White House staffers, and private sector officials, where a pilot program to test emission trading between the U.S. and Russia was proposed. According to the document, the U.S. is “considering the possibility of establishing a linked emissions trading/joint implementation pilot program with Russia.” The plan has also been “favorably” received by other countries who are part of the “Umbrella Group.”

“The purpose of the possible pilot programs would be to demonstrate that compliance, measurement, registry, and certification of trades could be ensured in Russia, answering concerns expressed about the practicability of the Kyoto mechanisms in Russia,” the document said. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), chairman of the House Science Committee, is concerned about the propriety of the proposal given the absence of Senate ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

In a letter to Carol Browner, EPA administrator, Sensenbrenner requested detailed information regarding the proposal. Sensenbrenner reminded Browner that the administration has repeatedly said that it will not try to implement the Kyoto Protocol prior to Senate ratification, and that the 1999 appropriations legislation bars the administration from such activities.

“Quite frankly, I fail to see how it [the proposal] is consistent with administration policy, as stated by [the Office of Management and Budget], or with the purposes and plain meaning of the VA-HUD Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999 for anyone in the U.S. delegation to even initiate discussions with the Umbrella Group, which includes the Russian Federation, for such programs to test the interests of U.S. business in such programs,” said Sensenbrenner (BNA Daily Environment Report, May 28, 1999).

Federal Government to Reduce Emissions

On June 3 President Clinton ordered federal agencies to “reducegreenhouse gas emissions attributed to facility energy use” to 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. It also requires each agency to “reduce energy consumption per gross square foot of its facilitiesby 20 percent by 2005 and 35 percent by 2010 relative to 1985.”

These goals seem to be at odds with the Clinton Administrations claims that we can comply with Kyoto without lowering energy use, but by simply using energy more efficiently. Yet the executive order requires a greater reduction in energy use than in greenhouse gas emissions.

The order also requires the greater use of renewable energy. The federal government will be required to install 2,000 solar energy systems at federal facilities by the end of 2000 and 20,000 by the end of 2010 as part of the Million Solar Roofs initiative. The executive order can be found at the www.whitehouse.gov.

U.S., E.U. Still at Odds Over Emission Trading

Representatives from 150 countries are meeting on Bonn, Germany to continue talks about how to implement the Kyoto Protocol, and to prepare for COP-5 this coming November. Progress has come to a standstill due to a dispute between the U.S. and the European Union, over the use of emission trading. The U.S. wants to have unlimited emission trading while the E.U. wishes to limit emission trading, forcing governments to achieve most of their emissions reductions within their own borders.

Chief U.N. climate official Michael Zammit Cutajar said it is “highly unlikely” that the dispute will be settled before the November meeting (The Toronto Star, June 1, 1999). State Department spokesman James Foley reiterated the U.S. commitment to unlimited trading, and pointed out that the E.U. accepted the Kyoto language that sets no quantitative limits (The Electricity Daily, June 4, 1999).

A new report released by the Paris-based International Energy Agency shows that the European proposal to cap emissions trading would heavily impact on the U.S. According to the study, a cap would reduce the ability of the U.S. trade emissions by as much as 66 percent.

With unlimited trading U.S. companies could trade as much as 2.07 million tons of CO₂, whereas a cap would reduce the volume of trade to 674,000 tons, forcing the U.S. to implement new emissions regulations. Melinda Kimble, U.S. acting assistant secretary of state, argued that “eliminating flexibility or to reduce it so its no longer cost-effective is just going to endanger the agreement” (Greenwire, June 7, 1999).

Texas Governor Declares Belief in Global Warming Theory

The GOP presidential frontrunner, George W. Bush, may have conceded the global warming debate to Vice President Al Gore. After having said that the “science is still out” on global warming, Bush has reversed himself saying, “I believe there is global warming.”

According to Governor Bush, “Ive had some briefings recently, and Im becoming more convinced that the science proves theres global warming” (Washington Times, May 21, 1999). This is good news for the Gore camp given that the Vice Presidents strident pronouncements on global warming and the need for a “wrenching” transformation to prevent it could be damaging fodder in the hands of his opponents.

Republicans see Green in Warming

Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said, “Republicans will make climate change policy an issue in rural America for the 2000 election,” according to Greenwire (May 19,1999). The farm state Senator favors doling out $13 million over the next three years to the Agriculture Department to determine how farmers can cash in on the global warming bandwagon. The money would go to carbon cycle research to find evidence that North America farmland absorbs greenhouse gases.

Environmentalists oppose the research because they worry that the findings may be used by Kyoto opponents to argue against U.S. reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

U.S., Australia Attack EU Stand on Emission Trading

Both the U.S. and Australia have voiced their dismay at the EUs recent decision to restrict the use of emission trading under the Kyoto Protocol. On May 17 the EU approved a measure that would restrict the use of “flexible mechanisms,” such as emission trading and joint implementation, to make sure that most greenhouse gas reductions are domestic. The EU has always maintained that emissions reductions should occur primarily within the individual countries.

The U.S. accused the EU of changing the Kyoto agreement that makes no mention of limiting the use of flexible mechanisms. “This new action by the EU is an attempt to rewrite the Kyoto Protocol,” the State Department said in a statement. “The U.S. government is disappointed by (the) statement of the European Union seeking to restrict the use of emissions trading under the Kyoto Protocol” (Agence France Presse, May 19, 1999). An Australian diplomat in Brussels said, “Australia feels that a decision along the lines the EU is talking about would restrict the flexibility mechanisms to the point that they would effectively be neutered” (Reuters, May 18, 1999).

EPAs Global Warming Web Site is Misleading

Many who have studied the global warming issue know that EPAs global warming web site is biased, and barely mentions the raging scientific debate over the issue. A comprehensive analysis of the web site, conducted by the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE), documents “how EPA presents the available body of science to the public.” The CRE finds that the information provided is misleading.

The EPA claims, for example, that its web site is based on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, notes the CRE study, the EPA does a poor job “of informing readers about important scientific caveats and major uncertainties” that are present in the IPCCs 1995 report.

The EPA, for example, quotes the IPCC as saying, “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate,” but fails to quote the important caveats. For example, the IPCC states, “[The model results] cannot be considered as compelling evidence of a clear cause-and-effect link between anthropogenic forcing and changes in the Earths surface temperature.”

The IPCC also argues, “our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors. These include the magnitude and patterns of long term natural variability.” The full report, How OMB Data Quality Regulations will Help Resolve Disputes over Global Warming, can be downloaded from www.TheCRE.com.

EPA and DOE Violated Federal Law

A congressional hearing, sponsored jointly by the Senate Energy Research, Development, Production and Regulation Subcommittee, and the House National Economic Growth Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee, was held on May 20 to determine whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies have overstepped their regulatory authority with regard to budget requests to address global warming.

GPRA Violations

According to Jerry Taylor, the Cato Institutes Director of Natural Resources, the administrations budget request for the EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) are in violation of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. In particular, “no concrete performance or results measures are provided for most of the DOE or EPA budget accounts in which the administration seeks increased appropriations to address global climate change.”

Those that do exist, said Taylor, “are founded upon dubious analysis and are without solid foundation.” Moreover, “they are disconnected from any assessment of their value to the national economy or to public health, rendering them of little use to the public.”

Taylor was particularly critical of the administrations Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI). He argued that the administrations estimate that the EPAs CCTI activities would reduce carbon emissions by 354 million metric tons, and the DOEs activities will reduce emissions by 112 million metric tons “are so unrealistic that they cast doubt on the seriousness of the administrations attempts to comply with GPRA.”

DOEs own five labs study estimates that a “high efficiency” scenario for the economy would only reduce emissions by about 120 million metric tons. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) finds only a 79 million metric ton decrease in emissions under a high efficiency scenario.

Probably the most outrageous claims by the administration have to do with the cost-benefit analysis of global warming programs. An example is the claim that a 20 percent tax credit for residential electric heat pumps will be a net benefit for the economy. According to the EIA, a current model heat pump costs about $4,400 while one that would qualify for the tax credit would cost about $5,500. The tax credit would cover the $1,100 difference in cost. The total cost saving of such a purchase would be about $783, a net loss of $317 to the economy. Dividing the cost of the tax credit by the amount of greenhouse gases avoided puts the cost of reducing emissions at $349 per ton. Assuming a 10 percent discount rate puts the cost at $666 per ton.

Knollenberg Violations

Also testifying before the committees was William Lash, Professor of Law at George Mason University. He argued that the EPA is in violation of the Knollenberg Amendment that “prohibits implementation of the Kyoto Protocol prior to Senate ratification via regulation, rules, orders, or decrees by the executive branch.”

The EPA argues that it has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under existing regulatory authority as long as the purpose of the regulation is not to implement the Kyoto Protocol. This, according to Lash, “is tantamount to saying that as long as the agency acts under the color of existing authority, and does not truthfully report what it is doing, it is in compliance with the Knollenberg Amendment.”

This interpretation of the Knollenberg language is incorrect, however. The Amendments legislative history clearly shows, “the author of the Amendment intended it to preclude regulations implementing the Kyoto Protocol, even if those regulations were promulgated under the color of existing statutory authority.” Lash also argues, “in light of the fact that EPA chooses to interpret the Knollenberg Amendment as a practical nullity, Congress should seriously consider strengthening the Amendment to give it more teeth.”

Lash also accused the EPA of crossing the line from educating the American public about global warming to advocating specific policy goals, such as the Kyoto Protocol, something that is prohibited under the Knollenberg Amendment.

EPA conferences about global warming are clearly biased towards Kyoto, and with few exceptions present no dissenting voices. According to Lash, “EPA documents such as Cool Facts About Global Warming fail to provide even passing reference to the uncertainties and conflicts within the scientific community regarding climate change.”

New Bill to Implement Clinton-Gore Agenda

Just when it looked like the Clinton Administrations global warming agenda was nearly buried, some Republican lawmakers have begun to rehabilitate it. The “early action for credit” bill introduced by Senators Chafee, Leiberman and Mack would, if passed, grease the skids for eventual ratification of the defunct Kyoto Protocol, and a bill introduced by Senators Murkowski and Hagel legitimizes the “need” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Now Representative Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) has introduced a bill, the Energy Efficient Affordable Home Act of 1999 (H.R. 1358) that would implement a part of Clintons rejected Climate Change Initiative. The bill would give a $2,000 tax credit for energy-efficient homes. To qualify for the tax credit a home would have to be 30 percent more energy efficient than required under the International Energy Conservation Code.

The bill has the support of the National Association of Home Builders, the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association, the Edison Electric Institute and other industry groups that would benefit financially from this corporate subsidy, as well as environmental and public interest groups (e-FFICIENCY News, May 11, 1999).

DOT Wants Global Warming Cash

Not to be outdone by its fellow federal agencies, the Department of Transportation announced on May 3 that it will create a $1 million “center for global climate change and environmental forecasting,” to study greenhouse gas emissions. The new program would do scientific research, and assess new technologies and alternative fuels. Transportation Secretary Rodney E. Slater noted that the agency would work closely with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. “Im just pleased that we in Transportation will not be taking a back seat on the issue of the environment,” said Slater.

According to the Washington Post (May 2, 1999), the new center “will study new technologies to achieve higher fuel efficiency, tax credits for fuel-efficient cars, changes in travel behavior, transportation planning as a part of community development, and other methods of addressing global warming.” Slater also announced that federal transportation experts would be made available to communities to help design projects as well as teach local officials and citizens how to acquire federal funds for transportation projects.

EU Agrees on Global Warming Plan

After long and contentious negotiations the European Union members finally came to an agreement on a common strategy to fight global warming. An early proposal would have restricted the use of flexible mechanisms, such as emission trading, to make sure that countries achieve most of their emission reductions through domestic actions.

Netherlands and Sweden had both rejected the plan asking for looser restrictions. But according to a German spokesman, “the Dutch and Swedish problem seems to be solved. The negotiating position will be adopted along with a special declaration noting their special problems” (Reuters, May 10, 1999).

Senate Bill Would Spend $2 Billion to Prevent Global Warming

On April 27 Senators Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), introduced a bill (S. 882) that would create a $2 billion, 10 year research and development program to reduce greenhouse gases. The funds would support a public-private research effort funneling new subsidies into the energy industry.

Murkowski, who opposes the Kyoto Protocol, claims that the bill “represents a long-term technology based, global alternative.” He also said it would “leverage American ingenuity in the marketplace to develop new technology that can be exported and deployed around the world.” Murkowski also told reporters, “We anticipate a great deal of support from industry.” There is little reason to believe that this R&D program would be any more successful than previous failed programs.

The bill would also create the Office of Global Climate Change within the Department of Energy, to be headed by an assistant secretary. Hagels defense of the bill, highlighted one of its main weaknesses. He said, according to the BNA Daily Environment Report (April 28, 1999), “this change would centralize accountability and responsibility for climate change policy within the executive branch.”

The bill would also expand Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which allows companies to voluntarily report greenhouse gas emission reductions, to include new categories such as agricultural activities, forest products, grasslands and drylands management and iron fertilization of the oceans to enhance carbon dioxide absorption rates.

The Global Climate Coalition, an industry group opposed to Kyoto said, “if this or any other proposal allows the United States to move forward on recognizing and encouraging voluntary actions without any potential linkages to the Kyoto albatross, it should be widely accepted.” A coalition of 11 environmental groups expressed satisfaction that Murkowski and Hagel “have finally acknowledged that global warming is a serious problem,” but that the bill is “a dangerous diversion from real solutions to global warming.”

Other co-sponsors include Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Larry Craig (R-Idaho), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Rod Grams (R-Minn.), Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.).

Green Imperialism in Asia

The Philippines has struggled to escape the grinding poverty that has plagued its people for decades. Although it hasnt been altogether successful, there are signs that the Filipinos economic health is improving. The use of fossil fuels has always been essential to economic growth due to their relative abundance. Though many see this as a positive, radical Greens oppose increased use of fossil fuel in the Third World. Currently Greenpeace is lobbying the Filipino government reject “fossil fuel-based technologies to increase energy production,” and to create a clean air act, according to the Deutsche Presse-Agentur (April 19, 1999).

Greenpeace is alarmed that the Philippines and other Asian nations are heavily investing in coal-powered development programs. According to Athena Ronquillo Ballesteros, climate campaigner for Greenpeace International, “We have to stop using the atmosphere as a giant watebasket for gases like carbon dioxide that cause global warming.” She also said, “In order to seriously reduce the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere and thus prevent or slow down dangerous climate change, we need to start thinking about independence from fossil-based technologies.”

Greenpeace is urging the Filipino government to “serve as a model in proactive environmental advocacy” for the Southeast Asian governments. “We are calling on the leadership of the country to heed our call for a clean air act as well as create a healthy environment for renewable and energy-efficient power producers,” said Greenpeace.

Green Activists Criticize Gore’s Environmental Record

If Al Gore wants to become the next president of the United States he must have the support of the Greens. A recent letter signed by the heads of the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, Izaak Walton League, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Union of Concerned Scientists, U.S. Public Interest Research Group and World Wildlife Fund indicates that support may not be forthcoming.

These groups accused Gore and President Clinton of failing to keep their promise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which they call “global warming pollution.” The letter expressed “deep disappointment with the lack of an administration proposal to require significant reductions in global warming pollution. We are particularly frustrated,” continues the letter, “that the administration has not sought meaningful emission reductions from either power plants or passenger vehicles.”

The administration calls these accusations unfair. Todd Stern, White House climate change coordinator, said, “Despite strong resistance in Congress, this administration is moving aggressively on both the domestic and international fronts to meet the challenge of global warming. We believe our common-sense strategy will achieve the necessary emissions reductions while maintaining strong economic growth.” The Greens are not persuaded, however, accusing Gore of repeatedly breaking promises, failing to even take steps to meet the goals of the 1992 Rio Climate Treaty which would stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels (Washington Post, April 14, 1999).

EU Should Wage “Public Awareness Campaign”

The European Union has generally been seen as eager to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But a report from the European Consultative Forum on the Environment and Sustainable Development, an advisory body to the EU, claims that there is little public support for such measures. “Very little has been done to inform and convince,” said the Forum. “Unless this is remedied by a large-scale public awareness campaign, planned with intelligence and sensitivity, efforts to combat climate change will not succeed.”

The Forum also argued that the poorer countries in the EU must be “convinced that the climate change problem exists, and that it is not a fabrication of unknown power centers for equally unknown purposes.” Consumers must be targeted since one-third of total emissions that they claim contribute to global warming comes from end consumption and another third from transport. Without public support the EU will fail to reach its greenhouse gas reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol, says the report.

Greens Target Stanford Endowment to Fight Global Warming

The activist group Ozone Action has launched a campaign to shame Stanford University into using its investment clout a $4.7 billion endowment to pressure large corporations to alter their environmental practices. According to SF Weekly (April 7, 1999), Ozone Action is recruiting Stanford students and faculty to its cause of forcing Stanford to use “their shareholder clout by prodding corporations particularly oil companies into improving their environmental performance.”

Ozone Action particularly wants Stanford to target companies who belong to the Global Climate Coalition, an industry lobbying group that opposes the Kyoto Protocol. It claims that GCC is waging a multimillion-dollar “misinformation campaign” to discredit the scientific consensus about global warming. If Stanford cannot convince these corporations to change their ways, then, says Ozone Action, they should divest stock in these companies.

Senators Hagel and Murkowski to Introduce Global Warming Bill

Senators Frank Murkowski (R-AK), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) are planning to introduce a bill to provide $2 billion for the research and development of new technologies to prevent global warming. The bill says that given the possibility that manmade greenhouse gas emissions “may ultimately contribute to global climate change,” a long-term, global effort must be undertaken to stabilize them. It also argues that “all nations must share in an effective international response to potential climate change.”

The bill would establish an Office of Global Climate Change within the Department of Energy that would “promote and cooperate in the research, development, demonstration, and diffusion of environmentally sound, cost-effective and commercially practicable technologies, practices and processes that avoid, sequester, control, or reduce anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol for all relevant economic sectors.” It would also transfer “environmentally sound” technologies that are developed with federal funds “to interested persons in the United States and to developing country Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.”

The bill would lavish taxpayer funds on companies that successfully acquire government contracts to develop emission reducing technologies. The guidelines for acceptance of a proposal are stringent meaning that only large businesses with the technical expertise, sufficiently large staff, and the necessary discretionary capital would be eligible for funds.

The bill also provides for “public recognition” of voluntary efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. Under this provision the Energy Information Administration will keep a national inventory of greenhouse gas emissions and will collect the reports of emission reducing activities. “At a minimum,” says the bill, “such recognition shall annually be published in the Federal Register.”

The bill makes no mention of several “no regrets” policies that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as elimination of energy subsidies, deregulation of energy markets, and elimination of environmental regulations that discourage innovation.

Senate Hearings on Early Action Bill

Hearings on the credit-for-early-action bill introduced by Senators John Chafee (R-RI), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Connie Mack (R-FL) took place on March 24 before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Testimony was heard from business groups on both sides of the issue as well as Green groups. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) asked why an early action bill was necessary since the U.S. has not capped greenhouse gas emissions. Dale Lundgren, assistant vice president of business planning for Wisconsin Electric Power Co., responded that emission caps “are inevitable.” Eileen Clausen, executive director of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a group of big businesses that favor emissions reductions, said, “we do expect that at some point in the future, the United States will ratify a climate change treaty that includes a binding commitment to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.”

Raymond Keating, chief economist for the Small Business Survival Committee told the Senators that the credit-for-early-action bill would make caps on greenhouse gas emissions more likely in the U.S. “Credits would only have meaning and value under the Kyoto Protocol or some similar regulatory regime which would implement an emissions cap-and-trade system,” said Keating. The bill “would be pointless” otherwise. Keating also argued that “credits potentially worth untold millions of dollars would act as powerful incentives to push and lobby for treaty ratification or some type of regulatory structure that would give value to such credits.”

Baucus said that the bill must encourage small businesses to participate in early emissions reductions. Keating, however, said that small businesses would view the program as being “the domain of big business or be construed as some complex and vague program that offers no or little quantifiable benefit in running their day-to-day operations.” Moreover, small businesses “would not be able play the credits game,” said Keating, given their small profit margins (BNA Daily Environment Report, March 25, 1999).

Public Perceptions of Global Warming

An important part of the global warming debate is how the public perceives the threat of global warming. Many polls have attempted to assess public perceptions. In an article in the journal Climate Research (December 17, 1999), researchers review and interpret the available polling data as well as their own polling data.

They found that many people have an awareness of global warming and assign a fairly high level of threat to the phenomenon, albeit much lower than other environmental threats. They also found widespread confusion regarding global warming. Many Americans linked aerosols and insecticides with global warming as well as confused it with ozone depletion. Surprisingly, the authors polling data found that 31 percent of respondents said that heating and cooling their homes was not a cause of global warming and 54 percent said it was minor or secondary cause. “Perhaps,” say the authors, “the source of temperature control in homes is not understood by many Americans.”

Few poll respondents considered global warming to be a serious threat. Fifty-one percent did not believe that global warming would have a negative effect on standards of living. “In fact,” say the authors, “24 to 39 percent think that positive outcomes are likely.” This is also reflected in peoples willingness to pay to prevent global warming. One poll asked whether the U.S. should spend less, the same amount or more on global warming, 50 percent said less while only 33 percent said more.

When asked about lifestyle changes 60 percent of respondents said that Americans would be willing to install more insulation and weatherize and 41 percent said they would replace older appliances. Forty-five percent said that Americans are not likely to buy more fuel-efficient cars while 30 percent said they would. Forty-nine percent said they are unlikely to carpool and drive less and 59 percent said that it was unlikely that they would use less air conditioning and heat. Only 21 percent and 15 percent respectively, said that Americans were likely to engage in the latter activities.

The authors conclude “that global warming is not a salient problem for most Americans.” They do not “support initiatives that threaten car use or home heating and cooling options.”

Media Coverage of Extreme Weather

Green activists have made concerted effort to link global warming with extreme weather. Droughts, floods, hurricanes, and forest fires have all been attributed to global warming. Some claim that extreme weather events prove the global warming is already here. Coupled with the publics belief that the weather has become more extreme and you have the making of a real scare story.

A study in the journal Climatic Change (February 1999) by Sheldon Unger, asks if the weather is becoming more extreme or whether the publics perception is being influenced by other factors? Unger searched media stories about extreme weather events that aired on television network news (ABC, CBS, and NBC) from 1968 and 1996, and found that there has been a five-fold increase in network coverage of extreme weather events. Most of the increase has occurred since 1988 when global warming became a major issue.

Several scientific studies, however, have failed to find upward trends in extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, and hurricanes. In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in its 1996 report that “Overall, there is no evidence that extreme weather events, or climate variability, has increased, in a global sense, through the 20^th century, although data and analyses are poor and not comprehensive.”

New Early Action Bill Introduced

The latest attempt to smooth the way for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol is a plan to allow businesses to earn emissions credits if they voluntarily reduce their CO2 emissions. On March 4, Senator John Chafee (R-R.I.) along with 11 other cosponsors introduced a bill that would give businesses credits for use “in any future domestic program for controlling greenhouse gases,” according to the BNA Daily Environment Report (March 5, 1999).

The bill would give several federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Energy, the authority to negotiate emission reduction agreements with companies. Senator Connie Mack (R-Fl.), a cosponsor of the bill, argued that “under this legislation, businesses are encouraged not by government fiat or handout to do the right thing in protecting the environment and get credit for their own initiative.” He also said, “the consequences of regulations targeted at changing our patterns of energy use could be dramatic and economically unsound.”

A joint statement signed by both environmental groups and conservative/free-market groups blasted the bill as “an accounting nightmare that could be exploited by special interests for economic advantage.” The groups included the American Policy Center, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Friends of the Earth, National Center for Public Policy Research, National Environment Trust, National Tax Limitation Committee, Ozone Action, Small Business Survival Committee, This Nation, Seniors Coalition, and Sierra Club. The statement also said, “as written, this plan could not possibly benefit either the economy or the environment.”

UK: Carbon Taxes are Unavoidable

The Clinton Administration has downplayed the need for costly carbon taxes, claiming that the U.S. can meet its Kyoto target through emission trading and energy efficiency measures. Great Britain doesnt see things the same way. According to an article in the March 10 issue of the Independent (London), “the Government considers the [carbon] tax unavoidable if emissions of carbon dioxide from power stations are to be curbed in line with the Kyoto agreement on climate change of December 1997, and the even tougher Labour manifesto pledge to cut CO2 emissions by 20 percent by 2010.”

In line with this sentiment the Government has recommended an energy tax on industry as well as measures to cut automobile CO2 emissions. Even though proponents claim the tax will be revenue neutral, many in industry are wary. “I dont think energy-intensive industries can stand being taxed any more than they are without being driven out of business,” said Lisa Waters, economic advisor to the Energy-Intensive Users Group. The proposal would lower industrys CO2 emissions by 1.5 million tons. Vehicle emissions would also be cut by the same amount.

EU Ministers Fail to Agree on Kyoto Commitments

On March 11 the EU Environment Ministers met to define their position regarding commitments made in Kyoto. On the agenda was a ceiling on the use of flexible mechanisms such as emission trading, clean development mechanism, and joint implementation. They agreed in principle on restricting the amount of emissions reductions to be achieved through flexible mechanisms, but did not agree on what the specific ceiling should be. The Netherlands, Finland and Sweden argued that the German proposal to “calculate ceilings based on real national annual emissions,” was too restrictive. The Dutch argued in favor of allowing at least 50 percent of greenhouse gas reductions to take place using flexible mechanisms if national measures are adopted (European Report, March 13, 1999).

The War on Cars

The automobile has become public enemy number one in some quarters, even though its benefits are tremendous. Al Gore even called for eliminating the internal combustion engine in his book Earth in the Balance. Currently the state legislature of Massachusetts is considering a bill that would penalize individuals who purchase “gas-guzzling” cars, and reward those who purchase fuel-efficient cars. According to the Associated Press (March 9, 1999), the bill would raise gasoline taxes for large vehicles from 5 percent to 10 percent while lowering the tax for smaller cars to as low as zero percent.

The bills sponsor, Senator David Magnani (D-Framingham) said that the tax would be like a “user fee for the environment.” Also, the bill “suggests when you pollute, it has a public impact,” according to Magnani. Rob Sargent, legislative director of the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, applauded the bill, saying it would help prevent global warming. Others are not so happy, however. Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation and Government, argued that this would penalize people who want larger cars for safety reasons. “This is not David Magninis business,” she said. “This is strictly elitist know-it-all politicians trying to force their particular choice on other people who they feel are not competent to make choices for themselves and their families.”

World Bank Seeking Funds for Emissions Reductions

World Bank officials are submitting a proposal for a Prototype Carbon Fund to curb greenhouse gas emissions to its board of directors. If approved the bank can seek funding from governments and companies. Three Japanese companies, Mitsubishi Corp., Mitsui and Co., and Tokyo Electric Power Co. have already agreed to invest $5 million in the project (Greenwire, March 12, 1999).