Politics

UN Readies “Buenos Aires Mandate”

The UN Conference on Trade and Development has developed recommendations for the proposed Buenos Aires Mandate to be completed at the November 1998 climate treaty Conference of the Parties. The UNCTAD plan would provide for voluntary developing country participation in a global emissions trading scheme. The proposals were released at a London forum co-sponsored by the UN Environment Program and the Earth Council, an NGO directed by environmental power broker Maurice Strong.

Among UNCTADs proposals: 

• Limit developing country emissions growth, but impose no emissions cuts 

• Allow developing countries to choose different base years  

• Consider regional groupings of developing countries as one emissions unit, like the “EU bubble” 

(BNA Daily Environment Report, May 7, 1998)

Ashcroft Bill to Block Kyoto Implementation Without Ratification

On April 30, U.S. Senator John Ashcroft (R-MO) introduced a bill to prevent the Clinton Administration from implementing the Kyoto Protocol prior to Senate ratification. The bill, S. 2019, reads in part, “Federal funds shall not be used for rules, regulations, or programs designed to implement, or in contemplation of implementing, the Kyoto Protocol . . . unless or until the Senate has given its advice and consent to ratification.” Sen. Ashcrofts bill also states that “no Federal agency shall have the authority to promulgate regulations to limit the emissions of carbon dioxide.” According to Sen. Ashcroft, “This legislation will protect the American economy, our jobs and incomes, and it will uphold important constitutional values. Having given away far too much to get a bad agreement in Kyoto, the Administration is seeking to put salt into this wound by sneaking the Kyoto terms past the Senate and the public.”

Several groups responded to the proposed legislation. Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute pointed out that the Clinton administration has committed to take unilateral steps to cut emissions independently of a climate treaty. One of the ways that the Administration is surreptitiously implementing the treaty is through “Post Kyoto” conferences for State and local environmental agency officials and air quality regulators that took place in January and April. “Through such networking exercises, the Administration is recruiting pro-Kyoto lobbyists in bureaucratic power centers immune from Senate oversight,” Lewis remarked at the press conference where Sen. Ashcroft released his bill.

The American Farm Bureau Federation also strongly supports the bill. “The Kyoto Protocol is a bad deal for American farmers,” said Minnesota Farm Bureau President Al Christopherson. “It will dramatically increase production costs and reduce net farm income.” Phil Clapp, president of the National Environment Trust, was less complimentary. “New technology and energy savings can only benefit our economy,” Clapp told reporters. Preventing energy efficiency programs “would fly in the face of common sense and prudent government policy,” he said (BNA Daily Environment Report, May 1, 1998).

Clinton Kicks Off Efficiency Crusade

On May 4, President Bill Clinton called for an “American crusade” to stop global warming as he officially kicked off the Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH). Joined by actor-environmentalist Ed Begley, Jr. and National Association of Home Builders president Don Martin, Clinton outlined a new program to cut energy use in new homes by 50 percent over the next ten years. It would fund improvements in 15 million existing homes and cut energy costs by 30 percent. “If we achieve that goal, it means by the year 2010 well save consumers $11 billion a year in energy costs, the President said. The PATH project is intended to utilize energy-saving technologies and home designs that would reduce both greenhouse gas emissions and energy costs.

The National Association of Homebuilders endorsed PATH, which has already dedicated $70 million in subsidies for the homebuilder industry to encourage research and testing of energy-saving technologies. Clinton has asked that another $100 million for the program for next year as part of the $6.3 billion tax credit and spending plan that will face opposition in Congress (Washington Post, May 5, 1998).

President Clinton used the event, which took place in storm-wracked California, to warn about the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming. “If you liked El Nino for the last several months, you will love the 21st century if we keep on the path we’re on,” he said. For one of the first times, however, the President acknowledged scientific doubt about climate change. “There is virtually unanimous not complete, but virtually unanimous opinion among scientists that the globe is warming at an unacceptably rapid rate.” The President also claimed that “We know that if the climate, in fact, continues to heat up, through the excessive emissions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we will have more extreme, dramatic weather events such as those youve experienced so frequently in California in the last few years.”

More on Petition Project Controversy

 In our last issue we reported on the Petition Project, which has garnered the signatures of more than 17,000 scientists opposing the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and critical news reports on the petition drive. Since then more information has come to light. Writing in Access to Energy (April 1998), Arthur Robinson, President of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which sponsored the petition, says that of the thousands of petitions returned only 1.4 percent were negative responses. Ninety percent of the negative responses “consisted solely of profanity scrawled across the petition card, usually with the name of the writer removed,” Robinson wrote.

Environmentalists have attacked the review article that accompanied the petition because it is not peer-reviewed. As Robinson points out, however, “review articles are often not peer reviewed at all, since they do not contain original research and do contain complete references to the peer-reviewed literature for all of their data.” Moreover, states Robinson, “the 8-page review was written . . . to communicate the fully referenced facts on both sides of this issue to scientists, so that they could easily locate the information needed to reach their own objective conclusions.” Nothing in the petition mailing indicated that the article had been peer-reviewed or published in any scientific journal.

Robinson also responded to one of his more ardent critics, University of Chicago atmospheric chemist Raymond Pierrehumbert, who is quoted in various news accounts. Pierrehumbert is a prolific contributor to Internet newsgroups where he pontificates on a wide range of subjects, Robinson reported. Based on these postings, Pierrehumbert opposes sports utility vehicles, currently installed refrigeration, incandescent lights, short and medium-distance air travel, nuclear power, strategic defense, logging, private gun ownership, and fuel-bearing transport. Pierrehumbert once wrote: “On balance the U.S. doesn’t produce ANY of the world’s goods. We are a net importer of other peoples goods . . . Therefore, I propose that a large fraction of China’s CO2 emissions should be attributed to the U.S., in the Kyoto discussions. Japan’s too.” A member of the Union of Concerned Scientists “Sound Science Initiative,” Pierrehumbert has argued that cold water evaporates faster than warm water.

Mercury Rising

In what some now view as a never-ending quest to destroy the coal industry, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is once again considering regulating mercury from coal-fired power plants. In mid-April the EPA proposed that all coal-fired power plants measure and report mercury levels on a weekly basis. Some utilities will be required to measure the amount and type of mercury emitted from each smokestack and report on a quarterly basis. Since regulators need statistics to control an activity, this is the first step towards regulation. The most effective way to reduce mercury emissions is to switch from coal to gas. Thus many fear that this is the beginning of the end for the coal industry (The Electricity Daily, April 27, 1998).

Thirty One Nations Ink Kyoto Pact

Representing 38.5 percent of global emissions, the following countries have signed, but not necessarily ratified, the Kyoto Protocol. For the treaty to enter into force, Annex I countries accounting for at least 55 percent of 1990 CO2 emissions must ratify. (Global Climate Coalition)

Antigua	Argentina
Australia	Barbuda
Austria	Britain
Belgium	Denmark
Canada	France
Finland	Greece
Germany	Italy
Grenadines	Luxembourg
Japan	Marshall Islands
Maldives	Monaco
Micronesia	Norway
Netherlands	Saint Lucia
Portugal	Samoa
Saint Vincent	Spain
Seychelles	Switzerland
Sweden

Dont Bite the Hand That Feeds You

Environmental lobby groups are quick to criticize the private sector for investing in “dirty” industries such as oil refining, coal mining, and auto manufacturing. The same level of scrutiny is not applied to the philanthropic foundations that provide tens of millions of dollars every year to support the environmental lobby, according to independent newsletter The Climate Change Report. Charitable grant-makers such as the Pew Charitable Trusts, the MacArthur Foundation, and the W. Alton Jones Foundation invest heavily in some of the very industries the Green lobby is out to destroy. Their portfolio includes numerous emitters of greenhouse gases, including corporations represented in the Global Climate Coalition.

Pew donated almost $4 million for global warming advocacy last year, yet it also earned $250,000 from $6.6 million in energy-related investments the previous year in companies such as Atlantic Richfield, Phillips Petroleum, Texaco, and Unocal. Pew invested over $1.5 million in auto companies Chrysler and Ford, and $6.7 million in electric utilities.

The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the sixth largest contributor to environmental causes nationally, profits from investments in the Big Three auto manufacturers plus Exxon, Alcan Aluminum, and Imperial Oil. Likewise W. Alton Jones, which supports Environmental Defense Fund and Ozone Action, invested substantially in Atlantic Richfield and Mobil.

National Environmental Trusts Philip Clapp urged that attention not be focused on his benefactors: “The real issue is what the oil industry is doing.” Ironically, the bull market in blue chip stocks is helping to finance the Green campaign against energy use (The Climate Change Report, April 29, 1998).

Anti-Kyoto Science Petition Tops 17,000 Names

A petition circulated to scientists urging lawmakers to reject the Kyoto Protocol has been signed by over 17,000 individuals including over 2,000 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers and environmental scientists. An additional 4,400, according to the petitions sponsors, are qualified to assess the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earths plant and animal life and most of the remaining signers have technical training suitable to understanding climate change issues.

The petition letter is a strongly worded statement that goes beyond rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. It denies the existence of any scientific evidence that manmade greenhouse gases will cause catastrophic warming and even goes so far as to say, “increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Environmentalists are attacking the petition on the grounds that it was distributed with an article that was formatted in a manner that resembles a reprint from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A cover letter from Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, which also accompanied the petition added to the confusion, they claim.

According to Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Chicago and staunch environmental activist, “The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review.” Arthur Robinson, president of the OISM and lead author of the article admits that he used the Proceedings as a model, “but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people in to thinking it is from a journal” (Science, April 10, 1998). More importantly, the article is formatted in the same style as Robinsons newsletter Access to Energy which he has published for years.

The whole controversy is moot, however, unless one is willing to believe that the thousands climatologists and meteorologists who signed the petition are completely unfamiliar with the scientific literature on global warming and just blindly signed a petition based on one article that arrived by mail.

Ozone Action, the environmental group who did their own petition drive urging lawmakers to accept the Kyoto Protocol that attracted only 2,600 signatures, attacked the petition saying that, “Several members of the scientific community have looked over the signatories listed on the petitions Web site, and they did not recognize a single scientist known for work on climate change” (The Washington Times, April 24, 1998). Yet Ozone Action cried foul when it was pointed out that only about 10 percent of their list of 2,600 scientists had the expertise to qualify them to speak on the issue of attribution. Nearly 100 disciplines, according to Ozone Action, are “aware of the wide-ranging, day-to-day impacts of climate change” (The Washington Times, March 8, 1998). Their list, however, included anthropologists, psychologists, veterinarians, a gynecologist and many who didnt even have advanced degrees.

“Ambitious” Industry Plan Exposed

A front-page story in the New York Times (April 26, 1998) by environmental reporter John Cushman “exposes” a plan by industry opponents of the Kyoto Protocol. According to Cushman, representatives from “big” oil companies, trade associations and conservative think tanks have been drafting an “ambitious proposal to spend millions of dollars to convince the public that a 1992 environmental accord [the Framework Convention on Climate Change] is based on shaky science.”

The memo outlining the plan was acquired by the National Environmental Trust (NET) and leaked to the Times. Phil Clapp, president of NET, says that exposing the plan will probably make it impossible to raise money to carry it out.

Apparently only an “ambitious” industry plan would seek to educate the public about the science (or lack thereof) behind the Kyoto Protocol. NET officials were alarmed that the American Petroleum Institute was planning to distribute “a global climate science information kit to the media which include . . . peer-reviewed articles throwing doubt on the conventional wisdom.”

Its worth remembering that this is the same group which ghost wrote various op-eds for business and government officials at the time of the Kyoto conference, including one for Enron Corporation CEO Kenneth Lay (as reported in our March 18, 1998 issue). Enron produces natural gas. The Kyoto Protocol would hurt Enrons competitors (Detroit News, April 30, 1998).

Portraying legitimate participation in the democratic process by educating the public, media and lawmakers as a sinister plot only suggests that proponents of the Kyoto Protocol are concerned that the scientific case for a treaty is not as strong as they claim.

Third World Participation a Must

A report by the U.S. Department of Energy shows that without participation from developing countries the Kyoto Protocol will do little to slow the buildup of greenhouse gases. Absent third world involvement, carbon dioxide emissions will grow by 32 percent above 1990 levels by 2010, as opposed to 44 percent under business as usual. By 2020 emission will grow by 60 percent above 1990 levels, even if the developed countries fully comply with the treaty.

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said this is bad news for the administration. “Its [the Kyoto Protocol] even deader than it was before in the Senate, if thats possible,” he said. “For a 10 percent swing in emissions, the reward is not worth the effort. Why would you do the kind of damage to your economy and competitiveness and national sovereignty, if in fact youre not going to get any results?” Hagel asked.

Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright had announced on April 21 in New York City that the Administration would begin a “full-court press” to gain participation from the developing world. But, says Hagel, Chinas representatives told him at the Kyoto conference that they had no plans to sign the treaty. China and other developing countries even demanded that language allowing for voluntary participation be struck from the treaty (The Washington Times, April 23, 1998).

The same report stated that world emissions of carbon dioxide will rise by 79 percent in 2020 from 1995 levels due to an unexpected 75 percent increase of global energy consumption (Asia Intelligence Wire, April 23, 1998).

Wisconsins Global Warming Plan

Wisconsins Climate Change Committee, composed of representatives from state government, industry, and environmental groups, has agreed upon a broad outline for a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The plan, which was partially funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, will rely on reduction of electricity consumption by end-users through energy efficiency measures. It will also improve fuel efficiency and increase use of clean fuel and renewable energy sources. State agencies will purchase fuel efficient and alternative-fuel cars in an attempt to develop markets for these technologies. Those parts of the plan that effect the private sector will be limited to voluntary, no-regrets measures. This is just one of the ways in which the Clinton administration will try to comply with the Kyoto Protocol without Senate ratification (The Climate Change Report, March 30, 1998).

Automobiles Under Attack

A new study by the Environmental Protection Agency calls for tougher auto-emission controls on diesel engines, light trucks and sports utility vehicles by 2004. The study claims that improved catalytic converters and other emission reducing devices are technologically feasible and will add a mere $161 to the costs of each vehicle.

Even though new cars are 97 percent cleaner than their counterparts from 1970, the EPA fears that the increasing number of cars on the road and the move to larger vehicles will lead to an inability to meet national air standards. Auto makers say that the technologies listed in the study will all require very low sulfur levels in gasoline but the study makes no mention of this. Automobile and oil industry representatives argue that reducing sulfur content in gasoline on a national level is very expensive and unnecessary.

Paul G. Billings, and official with the American Lung Association, is pleased with the study. He is disappointed, however, that the EPA did not push for sulfur removal. “EPA needs to stop being a referee between big oil and big auto and become an advocate for big health,” he said.

Charles Kitz, head of environmental planning for Chrysler Corp., says that the auto industry is being “regulated on both sides.” On the on hand the Clinton administration is pressuring the auto makers to curb carbon dioxide emissions pushing the auto makers towards more fuel efficient diesel engines but new restrictions of soot particles called for in the EPA study may “preclude the use of diesels,” Kitz said.

The study says that the EPA may use flexible guidelines such as those used in California that use different guidelines for different classes of vehicles. This says the study will lead to greater technological innovation (Wall Street Journal, April 23, 1998).

Opposition to Emission Trading

In a speech to members of the European Unions Global Legislators Organization For A Balanced Environment, Frank Joshua, a researcher with the United Nations Conference for Trade and Development, criticized the EU for its opposition to emission trading. As of now it looks like the EU will not agree to emission trading at the November meeting in Buenos Aires. If this happens the U.S. will probably try to form a trading bubble with Russia whos emissions have dropped by 30 percent since 1990. Since the Kyoto Protocol only commits Russia to keep its emissions at 1990 levels it will have a lot of excess permits for sale.

The European Commission and environmentalists, however, are arguing that Russia should not be able to trade its permits with the U.S. or any other industrialized country since that would allow countries to meet their targets without domestic action. Peter Jorgensen, environment spokesman for the European Commission has called countries that want emission trading “the guys in black hats” and “immoral” (BNA Daily Environment Report, April 24, 1998).

International News

Japan became the first major industrial nation to sign the Kyoto Protocol on April 28. Japans target is to reduce greenhouse gases 6 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. The European Union followed suit the next day. Its signature commits EU countries to reduce emissions by 8 percent (AP Online, April 29, 1998).

President Clinton and Chilean President Eduardo Frei issued a joint statement on April 16 saying that developing countries “should participate meaningfully in efforts to address climate change, taking on emission targets whenever possible” (BNA Daily Environment Report, April 17, 1998).

Environmental Ministers Meet

Environmental ministers from 29 member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the G-8 Ministers (“The Group of Seven” most industrialized nations plus Russia) met in Paris on April 2 and 3 to discuss environmental issues.

The G-8 Ministers agreed that climate change is the greatest threat to the worlds sustainable development, public health, and future prosperity. They called for the rapid introduction of measures to implement the Kyoto Protocol claiming to be “aware of their responsibility to take the lead in combating climate change.” They also agreed not to use emission trading to avoid domestic reductions in greenhouse gases. The European Union insisted on a strict 50 percent limit on greenhouse gas reductions achieved through emissions trading. The U.S. and Japan demanded a 60 to 70 percent limit.

This is important because the Clinton administration has based its estimates of the Kyoto Protocols costs on the assumption that there will be a fully operating trading system. Any limits on the ability to trade emission credits will require an upward revision of the cost estimates.

One bright spot of the meeting was a declaration by the Environmental Ministers of the OECD countries endorsing the need to eliminate subsidies and fiscal incentives that damage the environment. Unfortunately, tax credits (allowing people to keep their own money) were included in the definition of subsidies and incentives (European Report, April 8, 1998).

Class Conflict

One of the provisions in the Clinton Administrations $6.3 billion tax and subsidy plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a tax credit for car buyers who purchase high mileage vehicles. The tax credit ranges from $3,000 for cars getting twice the base mileage for their class and $4,000 for cars getting three times the base mileage. The Clinton Administration said that it would work with the carmakers to define vehicle classes.

The Big 3 automakers, however, are opposed to classes. They fear that companies will alter existing vehicles to make them eligible for tax credits rather than invest in expensive new technologies such as fuel cells and hybrids. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy produced similar changes in the auto fleet.

Dan Becker, climate change director for the Sierra Club, is confused by the automakers resistance. Carmakers, says Becker, have complained about technology mandates but now the are resisting the market-based programs that they have wanted saying that they will interfere with costly technology investments (Sebastian Sun, April 3, 1998).

Electricity Deregulation

On March 25 the Clinton Administration announced its Comprehensive Electricity Competition Plan. The plan, according to the Administration will save consumers $20 billion per year or $230 per household, while providing substantial environmental benefits.

The plan includes various environmental provisions that the Administration claims will produce cleaner air and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Three billion dollars will be provided for the Public Benefits Fund to support conservation and energy efficiency measures, research and development for clean technologies, and deployment of renewable energy technologies. A Renewable Portfolio Standard will require that a minimum of 5.5 percent of electricity produced come from non-hydroelectric, renewable sources, subject to a cost cap. The plan also calls for emission trading authority for nitrous oxide emissions as well as consumer information requirements so that consumers can choose power from cleaner sources. The administration estimates that these measures will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 40 million metric tons in 2010 (U.S. Newswire, March 25, 1998).

Strong opposition from Congress prompted the Administration to drop a proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency to include a provision to limit carbon dioxide emissions, angering environmentalists. But the Administration said the proposal may resurface before the environmental committees of Congress who may be more sympathetic to the Kyoto Protocol.

The EPA is claiming partial victory, however. The plan gives EPA “streamlined authority . . . to cap nitrous oxide emissions a minor greenhouse gas already regulated by the agency.” They hope that this “important precedent” will lead to additional, far-reaching authority, enabling them to put a carbon emissions cap in place by 2008 (The Washington Times, March 27, 1998).

A Free Market Response to Electricity Deregulation

Competitive Enterprise Institute fellow in regulatory studies, Wayne Crews criticized President Clintons electricity deregulation plan, saying, “If the Clinton Administrations Comprehensive Electricity Competition Plan is to deregulate electricity, government oversight of the power industry must decrease. That doesnt happen here.”

Crews also argues that proper deregulation would abolish franchise monopolies, which may actually help renewable energies to compete in a more naturally evolving marketplace. “Mandatory access offers no end to regulation. But abolishing [monopolistic] franchises instead will give energy entrepreneurs large, small, and renewable the freedom they need to thrive,” said Crews (www.cei.org).

Congressional Republicans Aim to Stop Kyoto

In a speech to utility executives at the Edison Electric Institute CEO meeting Rep. James F. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wisc.) said that the Kyoto Protocol is “fatally flawed.” Citing a study by Charles River Associates, Sensenbrenner pointed out that compliance with the treaty would cost the U.S. $230 million and 3 million jobs in 2030.

He also discussed the tradition of withholding international treaties from the Senate. Past presidents have withheld treaties from Senate ratification for long periods of time. The 1949 Genocide Treaty, for example, was not sent to the Senate for ratification until 1989. Sensenbrenner said that the Senate may hold up something that Clinton really wants, such as nuclear disarmament, to force submission of the Kyoto Protocol.

Another fear is that the Clinton Administration may try to implement the protocol using existing authorities under the Clean Air Act. Sensenbrenner foresees a constitutional confrontation in the event of such attempts by the administration.

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committees forest subcommittee, hopes to avoid such a confrontation by creating a “brick wall” which would remove all money earmarked for global warming research from the budgets of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Agriculture and Energy, and the Army Corps of Engineers (The Electricity Daily, March 30, 1998).

Sensenbrenner also told the executives that educating the American public about the costs of implementing the protocol was key to its defeat. “If we tell the people how much its going to cost . . . the American people will be outraged,” he said (BNA Daily Environment Report, March 27, 1998).

Also in a dear colleague letter Rep. Sensenbrenner and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), ranking Democrat on the House Commerce Committee called on President Clinton to scrap the Kyoto Protocol in light of the “arrogance” displayed in remarks (reported in our last issue) made by Raul Estrada-Oyuela, chair of the Kyoto conference. Estrada criticized the U.S. Congress suggesting that “perhaps they should get in touch with the rest of the world” (Greenwire, March 23, 1998).

You Be the Judge

The Clinton administration cant seem to get its story straight with regards to implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. In February, Under Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat told the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that “We have no intention through the back door or anything else, without Senate confirmation, of trying to impose or take any steps to impose what would be binding restrictions on our companies, on our industry, on our business, on our agriculture, on our commerce, or on our country, until and unless, the Senate of the United States says so.”

In December 1997 Vice President Al Gore said, “Whether there is an agreement in Kyoto or not, the United States is prepared, under President Clintons leadership, to unilaterally take steps that we believe should be taken in order to deal with this problem.”

And on March 31, 1998 President Bill Clinton said at a roundtable in Botswana that the U.S. is “implementing an aggressive plan to reduce” greenhouse gas emissions (Agence France Press, March 31, 1998). Who is telling the truth? You be the judge.

Clintons Multi-billion Dollar Plan

On January 30, the Clinton administration announced a $6.3 billion emissions reduction plan. The budget for fiscal year 1999 will include $3.6 billion in tax credits and $2.7 billion in new research and development funding over the next five years. The plan will focus on four areas: buildings, industry, transportation, and electricity.

The package will include tax credits worth $100 million for rooftop solar systems. Homebuilders can receive tax credits for 15 percent of the cost of the systems with a maximum credit of $2,000 for photovoltaic systems and $1,000 for solar water heating systems.

To encourage industry support, nine hundred million dollars worth of tax credits will be made available for business firms who install combined heat and power systems. The tax credit will be ten percent of the cost of investment.

Energy-efficient buildings will receive a tax credit worth twenty percent of the investment subject to a cap and purchasers of new energy efficient homes will receive a tax credit equal to 1 percent of the purchase price up to a maximum credit of $2,000.

The Clinton administration will also propose a tax credit for fuel-efficient vehicles worth $700 million. Vehicles with triple the base fuel economy standard would be eligible for a tax credit worth $4,000 per vehicle. A proposal to equalize tax treatment of parking and transit and vanpool benefits will cost $100 million.

Finally, the administration will propose tax credits for electricity produced from wind and biomass worth $200 million (BNA Daily Environment Report, February 2, 1998).

Senator Helms Enters the Fray

In a letter to President Clinton, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-NC) accused the President of “unwisely and unnecessarily” delaying Senate consideration of several international treaties. Helms said that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will not consider the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty until the President submits the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for ratification.

“We owe it to the American people to let them know sooner rather than later, whether they will be subject to the terms of this treaty,” Helms wrote. A Clinton spokesperson responded that “the administration has no intention of submitting the Kyoto Protocol until there is meaningful participation from developing countries” (Greenwire, January 23, 1998).

Foreign Policy Experts Oppose Kyoto Protocol

Members of the Committee to Preserve American Security and Sovereignty (COMPASS) wrote a letter to President Clinton opposing the Kyoto Protocol. The letter reads in part, “lessons we have learned from (past) negotiations in arms control, trade and other areas . . . have been ignored or forgotten in the Kyoto process.” The letter argues that the Protocol “threatens to limit the exercise of American military power.” Excerpts of the letter appeared in a full page ad in the Washington Times on January 27, 1998.

“Political” Scientist Discusses Kyoto

Former chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Bert Bolin recently offered his assessment of the Kyoto Protocol in Science (January 16, 1998). Bolin estimates that under the Kyoto Protocol atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ will rise by approximately 29 parts per million by volume (ppmv). “It therefore seems likely,” writes Bolin, “that another international effort will be required well before 2010 to consider whether further measures are warranted.”

Bolin also discusses the problem of how to count carbon sinks in determining compliance. Though the protocol asks the IPCC to resolve this issue Bolin argues that, “It is . . . not clear how to devise satisfactory methods to achieve what is envisaged in the protocol.”

Bolin concludes that, “The Kyoto conference did not achieve much with regard to limiting the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” However, he sees the conference as a good first step towards the ultimate objective, “to achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” Bolin did not, however, define “dangerous interference.”