Politics

 Greens Oppose Early Credit Bill

Several Green groups, including the Center for International Environmental Law, Greenpeace, National Environment Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Ozone Action, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, U.S. PIRG, and World Wildlife Fund, have written a legislative analysis opposing the current “Credit for Voluntary Early Action Act.” Although not opposed to the idea in principle, these groups argue that they cannot support the Act as currently written.

There are several points of contention, a couple of which will be discussed here. The groups only favor giving “rewards and incentives for actions that would not otherwise have occurred,” and, therefore, oppose credits for actions that occur overseas. They point out that the Kyoto Protocol already provides incentives for early action through the Clean Development Mechanism, and that “additional incentives in U.S. domestic legislation for international actions are [not] needed or appropriate.”

They also argue that the Act should employ a “declining baseline over time to reflect, at a minimum, existing U.S. commitments under the Rio Convention.” They also argue that “baselines must be set in a way that avoids awarding credits for changes in market share unrelated to overall changes in emissions.”

They oppose allowing the “President to award credits for actions reported under the controversial section 1605b program,” under the Department of Energy that allows companies to report voluntary emission reduction efforts. They believe that reported reductions under this program are not verified. Finally, the groups oppose any credits related to nuclear power which they call “an inherently high-risk form of energy production.”

Senators to Sponsor a Counter Bill

Senate opponents of the Kyoto Protocol are offering a bill to counter administration proposals, as well as the Chafee-Mack-Lieberman Credit for Early Action bill that could grease the skids to ratification. Senators Chuck Hagel (R-Neb), Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.), Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) will cosponsor the bill.

According to Hagels spokeswoman “the legislation will include provisions to increase scientific research on climate change, invest in long-term research and development and remove tax and regulatory barriers that prevent voluntary industry action.” The bill, according to the spokeswoman, is a “recognition that Kyoto is going nowhere,” and is a “market-based way to approach climate change” (National Journals CongressDaily, February 5, 1999).

Clinton Asks for $4 Billion to Prevent Global Warming

In a blatant attempt to implement the unratified Kyoto Protocol the Clinton Administration has said it will ask the Congress for $4 billion next year to finance policies to address global warming. This is a sharp increase over last years funding. According to Gore, the move represents “significant new investments to accelerate our aggressive, commonsense efforts to meet the challenge of global warming.”

Many programs are included under the initiative such as a $200 million “clean air partnership fund” that would “generate millions more in state and private funds to help reduce greenhouse gases.” The money would be used to retrofit buildings, purchase fuel-efficient automobiles and “promote public-private partnershipsincluding voluntary efforts by companies to improve energy efficiency.” Much of the money would be tied to promises of state matching funds.

Other programs include: $1.4 billion for research and development of energy-efficient technologies and renewable energy programs, tax credits for purchase of energy-efficient homes and equipment, $122 million to develop cleaner burning, coal-fired power plants (Associated Press, January 26, 1999).

American Geophysical Union Makes Controversial Policy Statement

The American Geophysical Union, one of the top scientific organizations dealing with climate issues, released a position statement on January 28 regarding global warming. On the whole, the statement was a cautious review of the state of global warming science. In the end, however, it side-stepped the science and made a policy pronouncement. The statement concluded, “AGU believes that the present level of scientific uncertainty does not justify inaction in the mitigation of human induced climate change and/or the adaptation to it.”

The AGUs press conference was a public relations fiasco. Reporters asked whether the statement truly represented the views of the membership. It was asserted that the vast majority of the membership agreed with the statement. When asked what that assertion was based on, one of the panelists replied that the 26 member panel, which voted unanimously on the statement, was in tune with the membership and closely represented their views.

The panel also argued that the membership was given opportunities to comment and participate in the drafting of the statement. For example, a draft of the statement was posted on the web a few months ago and comments were received and incorporated into the statement. According to Fred Singer, however, an AGU Fellow and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, the final statement was not presented to the membership. “It was not displayed on the website nor announced in Eos (as required by AGU procedure; cf. Eos Dec. 29, 1998), but was sent to a panel which contained only five of the 13 members of the original panel,” according to Singer.

Reporters spent much of the time questioning the nature of the final sentence. David Wojick of Electricity Daily pointed out that the statement was not scientific, but merely talked about the science, and that it employed a triple negative that translateds into “uncertainty justifies action.” Another reporter pointed out that the use of double and triple negatives in statements of this sort are usually employed to cover-up widespread disagreement.

Wojick mentioned that in his estimation the current scientific uncertainty justified inaction. One of the panelists, Eric Sundquist of the US Geological Survey, asked Wojick if he had published that statement in a peer reviewed journal. Wojick replied that neither his nor the AGUs statement were scientific and would more properly be published in a journal of philosophy or logic, where degrees of uncertainty are discussed.

Finally, one reporter pointed out that this statement may be used by the Greens, as well as the Clinton Administration, to claim support for their global warming positions. The panelists argued that such claims would not be valid. A statement by Vice President Al Gore, however, stated, “We have an obligation to act responsibly in assessing potential damages, and to protect our economy and national security by investing in efficient energy technologies. As the AGU reinforced today, the risks of climate change are serious, the costs of potential impacts are large, and the time to act to protect our national interests is now.” So far, the AGU has not disabused Gore of this notion. The AGU statement is located at http://earth.agu.org. A critique can be found at www.sepp.org.

Many Green groups are beginning to become disenchanted with the “credits for early action bill.” Aides to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair John Chafee (R-RI) and Senators Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Connie Mack (R-FL) told the groups that the bill would be introduced with few changes. Groups such as Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the US Public Interest Research Group and the Union of Concerned Scientists argue that the bill “lacks adequate provisions to prevent fraud and abuse.” One Senate staffer complained about the attitude of the Green groups, accusing them of “whining” and scolding them for walking away from the process (Greenwire, February 1, 1999).

Greens Criticize Early Emissions Bill

A bill introduced by Sens. John Chafee (R-RI), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Connie Mack (R-FL) to give early emission credits to companies who voluntarily reduce their greenhouse gas emissions has come under fire from environmental groups. Green activists argue that the legislation “contains too many gaping loopholes for polluters.” According to John Passacantando, executive director of Ozone Action, “were all wrestling with what this loose language means, because it is filled with loopholes that could swallow any benefits of early action. There is a growing coalition of environmentalists that finds this bill may possibly be more trouble than its worth.”

The bill, according to Joseph Lieberman, “grows out of principles developed in a dialogue between the Environmental Defense Fund and a number of major industries.” The EDF is currently the only green group to endorse the bill, not surprising since they are presumably the principal authors. Other groups, though careful not to alienate Senate sponsors Chafee and Lieberman, have voiced reservations. Alden Meyer, director of government relations at the Union of Concerned Scientists, likes the idea of inducing companies to participate in early reductions, but would like to see “a much better version of this introduced (in the 106^th Congress) as a starting vehicle for debate.”

Jennifer Morgan, climate policy officer at the World Wildlife Fund, “applauds” the actions but “we think we need to build on it,” she says. “I think this bill sets a precedent for the future climate change debate, and its incredibly important that we get it right,” she added.

One of the problems with the bill, according to the greens, is that it allows companies who have reported emission reductions under existing programs to gain emission credits. The greens argue that weak verification systems should preclude the crediting of emissions reductions under these programs (The Energy Daily, January 11, 1999).

Global Warming in State of the Union Address

In his State of the Union address President Bill Clinton claimed that “last years heat waves, floods and storms are but a hint of what the future generations may endure if we do not act now.” The implication here is that the Kyoto Protocol will eliminate heat waves, floods and storms, a dubious proposition at best.

To counteract global warming Clinton proposed a new “clean air fund to help communities reduce greenhouse gases.” By spreading around federal largess, Clinton hopes to accomplish de facto implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and bypass Senate ratification. He expressed support for early credits to companies who reduce emissions in yet another attempt to buy off potential opposition to the Kyoto Protocol.

Although many big businesses are lobbying hard for passage of the “Credit for Voluntary Early Action Act,” small businesses have seen it for what it is: a boon to big corporate special interests at the expense of small to mid-sized businesses. It is also a blatant push for the illegitimate implementation of the Kyoto Protocol without the constitutionally required Senate ratification.

“Weve all learned to be wary of the words voluntary and temporary when elected officials tout their solutions,” said Karen Kerrigan, President of Small Business Survival Committee. “This credit for early action stuff is as bad as the treaty itself. And the overwhelming share of the business community from small businesses to the very large are united in their opposition to this misguided, costly and ineffective proposal, as well as to backdoor it or early action programs” (PR Newswire, January 7, 1999).

Support is steadily building for proposed legislation that, if passed, could seriously erode industry opposition to limits on greenhouse gas emissions. According to the New York Times (January 3, 1999), “big companies are maneuvering to push through legislation giving them valuable credits for early actions to control the waste gases that the binding treaty would strictly limit.”

It also states that “the legislation would mark a significant shift in the debate in the Senate over climate change, potentially moderating the opposition to the treaty among big industry groups and linking their financial interests to the goals of treaty supporters.”

The legislation, sponsored by senators John Chafee (R-RI), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Connie Mack, (R-FL), would give “ton-for-ton credits to any of the more than 150 companies that can document reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions under various voluntary federal programs.”

Its interesting that this legislation would only apply to a few businesses. As mentioned in the last issue of Cooler Heads, since there is no provision in the Kyoto Protocol for early credits, those awarded will have to be subtracted from the U.S. target, leading to a higher target for those companies not covered under the proposed legislation.

In a speech to the National Association of Manufacturers, Senator Chafee said “the good guys who take action now will be rewarded by having these actions count.” He also said “this credit program may also make early greenhouse gas reductions financially valuable to the companies who make them.”

While some environmental groups, like the Environmental Defense Fund, favor the legislation, others have criticized it. The National Environmental Trust says that the bill “does not provide sufficient guarantees that emission reductions credited under it will actually result from reduced emissions, as opposed to phantom paper reductions.” Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists has pointed out that “there is a lot of money involved, and there is going to be a lot of ferocious jockeying to control who gets the money. It is going to be pretty intense.”

A new attempt to implement the Kyoto Protocol without Senate ratification is underway. A bill introduced by Senators John Chafee, Connie Mack and Joseph Lieberman, would give early credit to U.S. industries for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. These credits, in theory, could be applied to reductions that would be required under the Kyoto Protocol. The Government Accounting Office has determined that there would be several difficulties to overcome:

Early Credit for Emissions Reductions

The latest attempt to implement the Kyoto Protocol without Senate ratification is a scheme to use the threat of future mandatory emission reductions to compel industry to “voluntarily” reduce emissions. In return, they will receive valuable emissions credits. Dirk Forrister, chairman of the White House Task Force on Climate Change, told a conference that “credit for early action, would encourage industry to begin curbing greenhouse gas emissions in the expectation that emission reductions eventually may become mandatory. The credits earned through voluntary action could be applied to any required cuts in emissions or traded domestically or internationally.”

The Clinton Administration has developed a set of guiding principles for an early credit system. The system should give credit for reductions of all six of the major greenhouse gases “from any source in any sector of the economy.” It should also give credit for any actions that offset carbon emissions, such as land use and forestry changes. The system should also:

• “be simple and straightforward, not complicated;

• provide a fair reward for environmental improvement;

• appeal to industry broadly and not just attract companies with newer, more efficient technologies;
• provide information to the public about credits, helping to ensure that businesses get the same amount of credit for similar actions or efforts;

• be consistent with an international emission trading system for greenhouse gases, which is under development, to ensure that credits earned through the program could be traded abroad; and

• not create prejudices about a possible domestic greenhouse gas emission trading system.”

Forrister said that the administration formulated its principles through discussions with various industry sectors such as aluminum, steel, electric power, forest products, cement, natural gas pipeline, and commercial real estate industries (BNA Daily Environment Report, December 8, 1998).

The “Paper of Record” Assesses Buenos Aires

Very little of note happened at the fourth conference of the parties in Buenos Aires, other than a largely symbolic signing of the Kyoto Protocol by the United States. The two largest points of controversy, developing country participation, and emissions trading, were not resolved, even though the U.S. delegation claimed otherwise.

New York Times (December 8, 1998) writer John Cushman performed a post-mortem on the international gabfest and tried to put the best face possible on the proceedings. Regarding the two major issues Cushman said, “Negotiators at the conference settled on an ambitious two-year timetable for resolving those and other sticking points. But that means approval cannot come until after the 2000 elections, if it occurs at all.”

Eileen Claussen, former State Department negotiator and executive director of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change said “Kyoto is not dead. But I dont know if this can be done in two years.” Michael Oppenheimer for the Environmental Defense Fund said, “If significant progress is not made by the year 2000, we will never make the 2008 deadlines of the treaty. We have to get the rules in place, or the time will slip away.” Connie Holmes, the chairman of the Global Climate Coalition doesnt believe that the Kyoto Protocol will be ratified. “In about 2001 or 2002, people are going to say, . . . we cant do this, lets stretch this thing out. You need more time if you are going to change as radically as this.”

Regarding the issue of developing country participation, Cushman pointed out that China and India are still resistant to accepting emissions reduction targets. Latin America and Africa are interested but “want guarantees that they will get their share of the aid.” And as Stuart Eizenstat, the chief U.S. negotiator, said “The monolithic phalanx that we saw in Kyoto in opposition to any and all participation has completely broken down.” This was prompted by Argentinas and Kazakhstans agreeing to accept emissions reductions.

The issue of emissions trading saw very little progress. The European nations are still insisting that there be a limit on the extent to which emissions trading can be used to reduce emissions. Many developing nations are also opposed to unlimited trading. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund claims that the other nations are using this as a bargaining chip against the U.S., but that resistance is weakening.

One issue that is becoming important is “credit for early action.” Cushman wrote, “Many companies have already invested in energy saving and other approaches to cut their emissions, or are planning to do so soon.” Legislation has been introduced to give them credit for doing so. According to Todd Stern, the White House official who coordinates the Administrations climate policy, “This is really the one area involving the whole issue of greenhouse gases where I think everybody ought to be able to agree.” Indeed, says Cushman, companies who are opposed to the Kyoto Protocol “are lobbying hard to get credits for early action, just in case.”

Combining Montreal with Kyoto 

Many issues were discussed at the climate change talks in Buenos Aires this month, but one of the most disturbing was the call “for greater scientific cooperation between the ozone depletion and climate change treaty organizations, recognizing the links between the two, human-induced atmospheric crises.”

On November 23 in Cairo, Egypt, United Nations Environment Program Director Klaus Tpfer, referring to the two protocols, told the 10^th Conference of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer that “we have to think of the many inter-linkages between the global environment issues and ensure that all our actions will serve the environment as a whole.”

Two of the six greenhouse gases that have been targeted for reduction under the Kyoto Protocol are hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), both of which were recommended as ozone safe replacements for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CFCs were banned under the Montreal Protocol. Parties to the Montreal Protocol are expected to adopt a resolution similar to the one adopted in Buenos Aires and could eventually lead to its involvement in global warming issues and an outright ban on HFCs. Since HFCs are “ozone friendly,” such a move by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol would be a massive expansion of the Protocols regulatory power.

If this occurs it would spell trouble for the developing countries that have been encouraged to use HFCs as CFC substitutes. Refrigeration is vital to the health and well being of people living in developing countries. In 1999 the developing countries will be required to begin phasing out the use of CFCs. Any investments in HFCs that may have already been made would be wasted if they are banned under the Montreal Protocol. This may also be another attempt at implementation without ratification (BNA Daily Environment Report, November 24, 1998).

Senator Hagel Proposes New Climate Treaty

In a speech before the Economic Strategy Institute, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said that the Kyoto Protocol “is not ratifiable or achievable.” He also pledged that Congress “will continue to do everything we did this year to stop back-door implementation of Kyoto.”

He then argued, however, that the Kyoto Protocol needed to be replaced with a better plan, a plan that incorporates “sound science” and involves all “interested parties.” The “issues of protecting the environment and finding a viable solution for cutting greenhouse gas emissions have become secondary to the protocol itself,” said Hagel. “Weve got to start over,” he declared (BNA Daily Environment Report, November 20, 1998).

Senator Hagels remarks were echoed by the executive vice president of the American Petroleum Institute, William OKeefe, who called for a new framework for reducing greenhouse gases. “Politicians loathe to admit that they made a mistake in Kyoto,” OKeefe said. They “need to rethink how to proceed on a basis on which 170 countries are working toward a common objective” (BNA Daily Environment Report, November 12, 1998).

 Report from Our Team in Buenos Aires

• Only 2,000 people reportedly participated in the events first week, a far cry from the 10,000+ that attended the December 1997 conference in Kyoto. The Green non-governmental organization lobby appears to be dispirited, and expectations for COP-4 are very low. Early in the conference, China and the Group of 77 underdeveloped countries refused to consider the possibility of voluntarily participating in global carbon suppression under the climate treaty. President Clintons signature notwithstanding, the Kyoto Protocol probably remains doomed in the U.S. Senate without the Third World consenting to energy use restrictions.
  
• Developing countries rejected U.S. overtures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, insisting that energy use is desperately needed to overcome poverty. The delegation from China ridiculed U.S. proposals for “voluntary” emissions reduction commitments, noting the contradiction between “voluntary” and “commitment.” Already, work plans are being developed to address virtually all contentious issues at next years conference in either Morocco or Jordan.

In an effort to salvage COP-4, Conference President Maria Julia Alsaguray, Argentinas minister for the environment, is facilitating side negotiations between a handful of developing countries and the U.S. The talks are rumored to include Argentina, Mexico, Chile, and South Korea. These countries are discussing “voluntary commitments” in exchange for generous technology transfers and other aid from the U.S. but only outside the formal treaty framework of the Kyoto Protocol. The big players, China and India, are still firmly opposed to including any Third World energy use restrictions in the global warming treaty.

• Members of the U.S. Congress expressed disapproval of President Clintons apparent decision to sign the Kyoto Protocol. They also called on Clinton to submit the Protocol to the Senate for ratification as soon as it is signed.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chairman of the House Science Committee and head of the U.S. Congressional delegation to COP-4, made two key points. First, he contradicted Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstats assertion that President Clintons signing of the Kyoto Protocol would have only “symbolic” significance. President Clintons signature would carry a great deal of expectation of future U.S. involvement in energy suppression efforts.

Secondly, Chairman Sensenbrenner explained that the Clinton-Gore administration has negotiated itself into a corner with no exit. The U.S. Senates 1997 Byrd-Hagel resolution, passed by a 95-0 margin, preemptively nixes any protocol that does not include emission restrictions for developing countries “within the same compliance period.” The Protocol conspicuously lacks this feature. Without amending the treaty, the Senate will not ratify, but without ratification of the treaty, the UN parties cannot amend it. Thus, the treaty is a dead letter as far as Congress is concerned.

Republican Reps. Joe Barton (TX), Joe Ann Emerson (MO), Joe Knollenberg (MI), and Democratic Representative Ron Klink of Pennsylvania also took part in the briefing. However, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) boycotted the Buenos Aires conference “in protest” against President Clintons apparent decision to sign the Kyoto treaty.

Senator Byrd Urges the President not to Sign the Kyoto Protocol

Senator Robert Byrd, a cosponsor of the Byrd/Hagel resolution, is also upset about President Clintons decision. Byrd warned the President that “signing the Kyoto protocol now would be contrary to the plain language of Senate resolution 98 . . . passed by a unanimous vote of 95-0 . . . . The consensus of the Senate remains that the United States should not be a signatory to the Kyoto protocol until and unless that agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions by developing country parties within the same compliance period . . . . The Senate’s position has not changed since the resolution was passed.” That condition has not yet been met, said Byrd.

Byrd also argued that signing the protocol would not improve the U.S.s negotiating position to secure developing country participation. Rather, it would be an “empty gesture.” Finally, Byrd noted that signing the protocol would “lend credence” to those Members who have concerns about the administrations attempts to implement the protocl through a “regulatory backdoor.” Byrd fears that signing the protocol would “jeapordize continued funding for even those existing [global warming] programs.”

Poll Finds Opposition to Kyoto Protocol

A new poll conducted by Wirthlin Worldwide for the Global Climate Coalition shows strong oppostion to the Kyoto Protocol. “More than six in ten Americans believe the UN global climate change treaty negotiated in Kyoto will be expensive for American households and should not be implemented.” Sixty-eight percent of American voters agreed that more research is needed before the United States commits itself to binding emissions reductions, but seventy-one percent said that they believe the U.S. should speed up voluntary programs to reduce emissions. Fifty-four percent said that President Clinton should immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol and submit it to the U.S. Senate for debate next year.

The survey summary stated that “American voters are not willing to pay higher energy costs resulting from the approval of the Kyoto Treaty.” It also pointed out that “Given the generally positive mood of the country and confidence in the economy, it is not surprising that American voters are wary of ratifying a treaty that threatens their current standard of living” (PR Newswire, November 9, 1998).

A Second Opinion: EPA Cannot Regulate CO₂

Last issue, we reported on the new legal analysis by the National Mining Association which showed that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have the authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. In another analysis from the Legal Opinion Letter (October 30, 1998), Gerald Yamada, Chief Counsel in the Washington, D.C. office of the law firm Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, confirms that view. He argues that if the U.S. were to sign and ratify the Kyoto Protocol legislation would be needed to implement it. The current Clean Air Act (CAA) does not authorize the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant for four reasons.

• Section 821 of the CAA Amendments of 1990 gives “EPA authority to only monitor and collect data for CO₂ emissions and make such data available to the public.” It does not allow it to impose emission limits.
  
• The EPA may issue a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for any air pollutant that it believes “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Primary NAAQS are issued to protect public health and secondary NAAQS are issued to protect welfare. Issuing NAAQS for climate purposes would fall under the welfare definition and would be considered a secondary standard. “The EPA cannot regulate CO₂ only because of its secondary effects,” says Yamada. “Since 1970 EPA has had ample opportunity to determine if CO₂ may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. EPA does not have the scientific basis to do so.”
  
• In the 1990 amendments to the CAA Congress directed the EPA to adopt separate regulatory schemes to control acid rain and to protect the ozone layer, “a marked change,” says Yamada, “from the pre-1990 CAA authority which delegated to EPA the authority to control air pollution emissions on a pollutant-by pollutant basis.” Implementing the Kyoto Protocol is much to complex to be handled on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. It would require a “comprehensive regulatory scheme.”
  
• Yamada points out that the CAAs authorization for appropriations expired on September 30, 1998. The EPA can continue to administer programs through annual appropriations from Congress, however. Yamada warns that the EPA may “attempt to initiate a new program to reduce CO₂ emissions by using its budget submission to obtain the requisite legal authority. EPA has used this ploy in the past to carry out programs not authorized by statute because EPAs annual budget submissions are difficult to decipher.”

Yamada concludes, “To regulate greenhouse gases, the Administration would have to propose a comprehensive program to implement the Kyoto Protocol as part of an Administration bill to reauthorize the CAA. Until a comprehensive program is enacted by Congress, EPA has no congressional authorization to control CO2 emissions.”

The Fourth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention (COP-4) was held in Buenos Aires from November 2-13, 1998. This page provides a recap of the highlights of the conference.

• November 12, 1998 — Groups Criticize U.S. Signing of Kyoto Protocol

• November 11, 1998 — Congressional Delegation Declares Kyoto Treaty Dead on Arrival

• November 8, 1998 — Conference of to Rocky Start

• November 6. 1998 — First update from Buenos Aires

• October 22, 1998 — Little Progress Expected in Buenos Aires

• October 3, 1998 — Pre-Buenos Aires: The Global Warming Debate Scorecard