Download Global Warming Treaty

T
CQ Researcher
H
E
PUBLISHED BY CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.
◆ WINNER, 1999 SOCIETY
OF PROFESSIONAL
JOURNALISTS AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE
Global Warming Treaty
Should the U.S. do more to cut greenhouse gases?
T
he scientific evidence continues to mount
suggesting that fossil fuel use is causing a
potentially disastrous warming of Earth’s
atmosphere. But governments are still far from
agreement on the best way to solve the problem. Three
years after more than 150 countries signed the Kyoto
Protocol agreeing to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide
I
and other “greenhouse gases” implicated in global
N
S
warming, no industrialized country has ratified the treaty.
Prospects for prompt action dimmed in November when
I
D
talks in the Netherlands aimed at implementing the
E
THIS ISSUE
protocol broke down amid charges that the United States
— the world’s biggest greenhouse-gas polluter — was
THE ISSUES .............................. 43
BACKGROUND ........................ 50
CHRONOLOGY ........................ 51
CURRENT SITUATION .............. 55
AT ISSUE ................................... 57
OUTLOOK................................ 59
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................... 61
to avoid changing its energy-consumption habits.
THE NEXT STEP ....................... 62
K
S
seeking to exploit loopholes in the Kyoto treaty in order
r
ve
co
ck
ba
Se
e
N
EW
BO
O
Jan. 26, 2001 • Volume 11, No. 3 • Pages 41-64
GLOBAL WARMING TREATY
T
CQ Researcher
H
E
THE ISSUES
43
• Does the evidence
conclusively link fossil fuel
use with global warming?
• Would meeting the terms
of the Kyoto Protocol harm
the U.S. economy?
• Should the United States
be allowed to use flexible
mechanisms to meet its
emissions target?
BACKGROUND
50
52
Greenhouse Effect
Most scientists recognize
that Earth’s temperatures
have been rising due to
the burning of oil, gasoline, coal and natural gas.
Road to Kyoto
Global warming gained
widespread attention in the
U.S. in 1988.
SIDEBARS AND
GRAPHICS
44
45
47
48
53
CURRENT SITUATION
55
55
Impasse over Kyoto
Only about 30 countries —
none of them major industrial nations — have ratified
the Kyoto agreement.
Domestic Debate
Opinion polls suggest
limited concern about
global warming.
56
Abandon the Treaty?
The breakdown in negotiations has prompted globalwarming skeptics to call
for the U.S. to abandon the
Kyoto Protocol, but most
experts disagree.
Major Greenhouse Gases
The primary greenhouse gas
in the U.S. is carbon dioxide
from burning fossil fuels.
Countries With the Highest
CO2 Emissions
The U.S. emits more CO2
during energy production
than any other country.
U.S. Produces Most
Greenhouse Gases
The U. S. produces almost a
quarter of the world’s carbondioxide emissions
Big Firms Pledge to Curb
Emissions
Ford and others quit the antiKyoto Global Climate
Coalition.
Key Environmental
Treaties
Since the 1920s, the United
States has signed more than
150 multilateral environmental agreements.
51
Chronology
Key events since 1970.
57
At Issue
Is there convincing scientific
evidence of global warming?
OUTLOOK
59
Sources of U.S. Greenhouse Gases
Most come from coal-fired
power plants and cars.
FOR MORE
INFORMATION
61
Bibliography
Selected sources used.
62
The Next Step
Additional articles from
current periodicals.
Cover: Coal-burning power plants are a major source of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse”
gases linked to global warming. (Corbis Images)
42
CQ Researcher
Jan. 26, 2001
Volume 11, No. 3
MANAGING EDITOR
Thomas J. Colin
ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR
Kathy Koch
STAFF WRITERS
Mary H. Cooper
Kenneth Jost
David Masci
PRODUCTION EDITOR
Olu B. Davis
EDITORIAL ASSISTANT
Scott D. Kuzner
CQ PRESS
A Division of
Congressional Quarterly Inc.
VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER
John A. Jenkins
DIRECTOR, LIBRARY PUBLISHING
Kathryn Suarez
DIRECTOR, OPERATIONS
Sandra D. Adams
CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.
CHAIRMAN
Andrew Barnes
VICE CHAIRMAN
Andrew P. Corty
PRESIDENT AND PUBLISHER
Robert W. Merry
Copyright 2001 Congressional Quarterly Inc. (CQ).
CQ reserves all copyright and other rights herein,
unless previously specified in writing. No part of
this publication may be reproduced electronically
or otherwise, without prior written permission.
Unauthorized reproduction or transmission of CQ
copyrighted material is a violation of federal law
carrying civil fines of up to $100,000.
The CQ Researcher (ISSN 1056-2036) is printed on
acid-free paper. Published weekly, except Jan. 5,
June 29, July 6, July 20, Aug. 10, Aug. 17, Nov. 30
and Dec. 28, by Congressional Quarterly Inc.
Annual subscription rate for libraries, businesses
and government is $500. Single issues are available
for $10 (subscribers) or $20 (non-subscribers).
Quantity discounts apply to orders over 10. Additional rates furnished upon request. Periodicals
postage paid at Washington, D.C., and additional
mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address
changes to The CQ Researcher, 1414 22nd St.,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037.
Global Warming Treaty
BY MARY H. COOPER
THE ISSUES
F
CQ on the Web: www.cq.com
Associated Press/Susan Ragan
November in The Hague, the
treaty meeting ended in stalemate with European delegates
rank E. Loy expected
and environmental groups
opposition from Eucharging that the U.S. had
ropean delegates when
been cynically trying to meet
he went to the Netherlands
its pollution emission target
last fall to negotiate a mawithout curbing oil consumpjor treaty to curb global
tion.
warming.
“A number of countries in
As undersecretary of
Europe are represented by
State for global affairs, Loy
ministers from Green parties
was trying to convince Euthat seem to have very
ropeans that the U.S. was
unpragmatic approaches at
The United States wants to use its forests, which absorb
not trying to exploit treaty
times,” says Loy, who led the
carbon dioxide — to help satisfy its obligation to reduce
loopholes to avoid meanU.S. delegation and rejected
pollutants under the Kyoto Protocol. Critics contend
ingful cutbacks in harmful
the charges. “We have an imthat the U.S. proposal would not actually reduce
emissions.
passe. We don’t have an
emissions that cause global warming.
But the rancorous meeting
agreement, and in my opinion
ended in failure. As for Loy,
the situation is very serious.”
all he got for his trouble was a cream patterns was at fault. That debate,
The current controversy involves
pie in the face.
while still active, has receded in re- language included in the protocol at
Controversy over global warming cent years, as most of the world’s U.S. insistence allowing countries to
is hardly new. The issue has encoun- governments have decided that only meet their Kyoto targets not only by
tered skepticism and resistance ever by slowing greenhouse-gas emissions actually reducing emissions but also
since scientists in the 1970s began today can the potentially catastrophic by buying carbon “credits” generated
warning that fossil-fuel consumption consequences of global warming be by other countries that exceed their
by automobiles, factories and electric averted.
emission-reduction goals.
utilities was releasing harmful levels
Such “pollutant trading” first arose
Consequently, in December 1997,
of carbon dioxide and other gases. 1 more than 150 countries meeting in in the United States during earlier
The latest warning came just this Kyoto, Japan, signed an agreement efforts to curb emissions of sulfur
to combat global warming. As part of dioxide, a precursor of acid rain proweek (see p. 45).
Initially, critics doubted the very ex- the deal, three-dozen industrial na- duced mostly by coal-burning utiliistence of the so-called greenhouse ef- tions agreed to reduce their emis- ties. Utilities that emitted fewer polfect, in which the implicated gases were sions of carbon dioxide and other lutants than the allowable limit by
said to trap heat inside Earth’s atmo- greenhouse gases to 5 percent below installing expensive chimney filters,
sphere like the glass enclosure of a 1990 levels. As the world’s largest called scrubbers, were awarded credgreenhouse. Scientists warned that the producer of such gases, the United its they could then sell to utilities that
trapped heat would eventually raise States agreed to cut its emissions by did not install scrubbers.
While the system did not force
Earth’s temperatures to the point that 7 percent.
polar ice would melt, raising sea levels
Three years later, that goal is prov- every polluter to reduce emissions, it
and causing coastal areas to flood. They ing ever more elusive. Although the did result in an overall reduction in
also warned of massive extinctions of evidence increasingly suggests that total emissions. It proved so successplant and animal species unable to cope human activities are causing global ful that a sulfur-dioxide trading retemperatures to rise, not a single gime has become a regular feature of
with hotter conditions.
As successive studies demon- industrialized country has ratified the the Chicago Board of Trade. The
strated that the gases were indeed Kyoto Protocol, and global emissions Kyoto Protocol envisions a similar
building up and global temperatures of greenhouse gases continue to rise. system for trading greenhouse gases
Meanwhile, consensus among the on the global level.
were rising, critics shifted their focus
The protocol also allows countries
to question whether man or some treaty’s signatories has collapsed. As
naturally occurring change in weather a disappointed Loy discovered last to include carbon “sinks” — mainly
Jan. 26, 2001
43
GLOBAL WARMING TREATY
Sources of U.S. Greenhouse Gases
Most U.S. greenhouse gases come from coal-fired power plants and
cars and light trucks. Net U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions rose an
average of 1.2 percent a year during the 1990s, reaching 1.6 billion
metric tons in 1998.
Total U.S. Emissions, 1998
(In millions of tons)
36%
29%
Other
Sources
Transportation
34%
Electric
Utilities
* Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Source: Environmental Protection Agency Web site on global warming:
www.epa.gov/globalwarming/emissions/national/trends.html.
forests — to help offset their total
emissions, again without actually
reducing carbon emissions. Trees and
other plants absorb carbon dioxide
as part of the process of photosynthesis — the chemical process of
turning sunlight, water and carbon
dioxide into carbohydrates in green
plants. Conversely, harvesting trees
and other plants is said to “emit”
carbon dioxide by eliminating these
sinks. The United States proposed
counting its vast woodlands to compensate for part of its industrial carbon dioxide emissions. 2
Ultimately, halting global warming
will require the world to switch from
carbon-intensive fossil fuels to cleaner
sources of energy. But many experts
say advanced industrial economies
like the United States will need time
to complete such a fundamental
overhaul.
44
CQ Researcher
“If you’re going to really switch
away from carbon-intensive fuels,
you’re going to need new technologies and new fuels,” says Eileen
Clausen, president of the Pew Center
on Global Climate Change, a nonprofit educational and research group
in Washington, D.C. As a member of
former President Bill Clinton’s National Security Council and later assistant secretary of State for oceans
and international environmental and
scientific affairs, Clausen played a
key role in formulating U.S. globalwarming policy.
Clausen likens the process of shifting to less-polluting fuels to a “second Industrial Revolution,” which will
take time to complete. “In the interim, you have to look for the most
cost-effective ways to keep emissions
from going up into the atmosphere,”
she says. “And that is really a com-
bination of becoming more efficient
and using mechanisms like emissions
trading and sinks, because from an
atmospheric point of view, it doesn’t
matter where the emissions reductions occur — it matters that they
occur.”
But many environmental advocates
and scientists agree with European
critics that the United States has made
little effort to date to meet its Kyoto
obligations. “The United States has
ignored energy efficiency in the last
decade and put itself in a position
where it can’t meet the goals in an
economically reasonable way,” says
James E. Hansen, director of NASA’s
Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
In 1988, Hansen played a pioneering
role in warning of the link between
rising carbon dioxide levels and global warming.
“There is a lot of potential in the
United States for higher energy efficiency,” he says, cautioning that improvements in energy efficiency cannot occur overnight, because it will
take time to replace or upgrade existing buildings and machines. But,
he says, “there’s no reason why we
can’t do our share on an appropriate
time scale.”
While much attention at The
Hague was focused on U.S. shortcomings, the role of developing countries in combating global warming
was never even on the table. Developing nations that signed on to the
treaty successfully argued that because the United States and other
industrial nations have produced the
lion’s share of greenhouse-gas emissions over the past century, they
should bear most of the burden of
reducing them. Indeed, the protocol
exempts developing countries from
emissions cutbacks during the initial
period ending in 2012.
But many treaty critics in the United
States say this distinction is unfair. In
1997, the Senate passed a resolution,
sponsored by Sens. Robert C. Byrd, D-
W.Va., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., barring the Kyoto Protocol’s ratification as
long as it exempts developing countries and causes “serious harm” to the
U.S. economy.
U.S. criticism of the Kyoto process
has been spearheaded by a broad
coalition of industrial producers and
users of fossil fuels — from oil and
coal companies to utilities and manufacturers. They established the Global Climate Coalition to lobby against
policies to curb greenhouse-gas
emissions. Although industrial opposition to Kyoto remains strong, several influential corporations have
dropped out of the coalition and
announced plans to voluntarily reduce emissions on their own. (See
sidebar, p. 53.)
“More and more businesses are
recognizing that they not only can
successfully operate in a carbon-constrained world but also help answer
the world’s need for ways to operate
goods and services in a carbon-constrained world,” says Fred Krupp, executive director of Environmental Defense, a nonprofit organization. “So
a whole range of businesses and business associations issued press releases
at the end of the [meeting in The
Hague] saying that they wanted to go
forward with the job, and they want
real rules to operate under,” he says. 3
Despite the partial turnaround in
corporate thinking, opposition to the
Kyoto Protocol has remained so
strong that Clinton, who strongly
supported the agreement, never even
submitted it to the Senate for ratification. His successor, President
George W. Bush, has questioned the
scientific evidence of global warming, and the issue hardly came up
during the recent campaign debates.
But the new administration will have
to turn its attention to global warming
before May, when negotiations will resume in Bonn. In reassessing the U.S.
policy, these are some of the issues that
will be considered:
CQ on the Web: www.cq.com
Major Greenhouse Gases
The primary greenhouse gas in the United States is carbon dioxide
produced during the combustion of fossil fuels.
Percentages of greenhouse gases
100
81.4%
80
60
40
20
2.2%
6.5%
9.9%
0
CO2
Carbon dioxide — Produced primarily from fossilfuel combustion.
CH4
Methane — Produced by waste decomposition, naturalgas systems and coal-mining activities.
N2O
Nitrous oxide — Has very high global warming effect,
used in fertilizer.
HFCs,
PFCs
and
SF6
Hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons —
substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals; sulfur
hexafluoride — used in electrical transmission
systems.
Source: Environmental Protection Agency Web site on global warming:
www.epa.gov/globalwarming/emissions/national/trends.html.
Does the evidence conclusively
link fossil fuel use with global
warming?
Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius
first suggested in 1896 that gases
emitted by burning fossil fuels could
cause global temperatures to rise. But
global warming remained just a
theory until the 1980s, when Hansen
and other scientists testified before
Congress that temperature measure-
ments indicated the phenomenon
was well under way.
International concern about this
evidence led to the creation of the
United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a
group of some 2,500 scientists and
other experts from around the world
whose reports have fueled the drive
for an international global warming
treaty. In 1995, the IPCC reported
Jan. 26, 2001
45
GLOBAL WARMING TREATY
Black Star Photos/Dennis Brack
that “the balance of evidence sug- the global mean temperature rose by century has gone up something like a
gests a discernible human influence 0.6˚C [1.08˚F] during the 20th cen- half-degree Centigrade [or 0.9 degree
on global climate.” 4 The panel’s most tury. 6
Fahrenheit],” says Richard S. Lindzen, a
recent report, presented on Jan. 22 in
But some global-warming naysayers meteorology professor at Massachusetts
Shanghai, cited “new and strong still dispute this finding. “There’s no Institute of Technology (MIT) and a
evidence that most of the observed question that greenhouse gases have prominent dissenting voice in the IPCC.
warming of the last 50 years is attrib- increased, but the balance of evidence “The real argument is, has man had
utable to human activities.” 5
suggests that there has been no appre- anything to do with this, and the anThe report also predicted that glo- ciable warming in the last 60 years,” swer is that a tenth of a degree might be
bal temperatures would rise by 3 to says S. Fred Singer, president of the due to man. But virtually no one in the
6 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of Science & Environmental Policy Project, IPCC can identify man as having caused
this century, making Earth warmer a nonprofit policy research group in even a significant part of that. They althan at any time in
ways carefully phrase it
human history. Unthat it cannot be wholly
der the panel’s
due to natural causes.”
worst-case scenario,
Global climate conditemperatures could
tions occasionally unsoar as much as 11
dergo profound changes
degrees over the
without human interfersame period.
ence, such as the most
Most scientists acrecent Ice Age, when a
cept the IPCC’s findsheet of ice covered
ings, as well as the
much of North America.
need to take immeMany advocates of
diate steps to curb
taking steps to reverse
greenhouse-gas
global warming point to
emissions. “The scia recent spate of violent
ence linking fossilweather, such as last
fuel use to greensummer’s floods in EuSport-utility vehicles (SUVs), like these on a Seattle import pier, and other
house-gas problems
rope and unusually high
cars and light trucks are a major source of pollutants that cause global
is incontrovertible,”
temperatures in the
warming. Because SUVs get fewer miles per gallon than smaller cars,
says Krupp of EnviUnited States, where
they contribute more to global warming than smaller vehicles.
ronmental Defense.
1998 was the warmest
“The science is so
year on record. 7 But
strong that we need to do a whole Arlington, Va., and one of the most Lindzen says the links between weather
variety of things. There are six differ- outspoken global-warming skeptics. extremes and rising temperatures are
ent gases covered by the Kyoto Pro- “The puzzle is why there hasn’t been a the weakest in the chain of evidence
tocol, so there’s not one solution to detectable, measurable, large increase supporting a global-warming trend.
the problem.”
in temperature.”
“Even the IPCC [said] they could find no
For instance, he says, the United
Even the data showing an increase association with . . . increased stormiStates could use fossil fuels more in temperatures don’t show an in- ness or hurricanes,” he says.
efficiently and give Midwestern farm- crease large enough to match those
Like many critics, Lindzen is espeers incentives to grow trees, rather predicted by the theory, he says. “So cially skeptical of the models comthan paying them simply to leave you either have to believe in the monly used to predict future temtheir land fallow, as often occurs now. data, or you have to believe in the perature trends. “We do know that if
The IPCC’s central finding, and the theory,” he says. “I tend to believe in you doubled carbon dioxide and did
main justification for taking action the data, so I believe that the theory nothing else, you’d increase the glotoday, is that temperatures have al- is incomplete.”
bal mean temperature by about a
ready risen significantly. That finding
Other skeptics accept the finding that degree,” he says. “But the predictions
was recently confirmed by the global temperatures have risen, but of much more serious warming come
Geneva-based World Meteorological continue to question man’s role in that from parts of the models that by any
Organization, which estimated that trend. “The temperature over the last rational test are misbehaving.”
46
CQ Researcher
Countries With the Highest CO2 Emissions
The United States emits more carbon dioxide (CO2) during energy production than any other
country. China and Russia are the second-largest sources of the main greenhouse gas linked to
global warming.
United States
5,325
China
3,180
Russia
1,517
Japan
1,178
Germany
905
India
863
United Kingdom
Metric tons of CO2
emitted during
energy production
582
Canada
470
Italy
420
Korea
409
Ukraine
388
France
384
0
(in millions)
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Source: Environmental Protection Agency Web site on global warming:
www.epa.gov/global...missions/international/inventories.html.
For example, many scientists agree
that the models’ descriptions of rising
temperatures’ impact on cloud cover
are inaccurate, but claim that those
related to water vapor, a major greenhouse gas, are accurate. “There’s no
basis for that distinction,” Lindzen
says. “Water vapor and clouds are so
intimately connected to each other
both in the modeling and in physics
that the statement that one is impossibly off and the other is OK just
doesn’t make sense.”
The comments of global-warming
skeptics carry less and less weight in
the political debate over Kyoto, however. “I’m not saying there aren’t one
CQ on the Web: www.cq.com
or two scientists who enjoy the press
coverage of bucking the 2,500 scientists who’ve been empanelled by 160
nations, or that we can know exactly
what’s going to happen in the future,” Krupp says. “But the overwhelming consensus is that we do
know that these gases are already
changing the climate, and if we continue to load the atmosphere with
them we will be performing a massive, uncontrolled and unprecedented
experiment on life on Earth. And
that’s unacceptable.”
Opposition to Kyoto also is weakening among U.S. industries. “The
business community by and large
accepts that the science is pretty
good, that this is a problem and that
we ought to deal with it,” says
Clausen of the Pew Center on Global
Climate Change. The center’s Business Environmental Leadership Council includes about 30 major corporations committed to reducing carbon
emissions. “The growth in the number of companies affiliated with us is
some indication of this. I think there’s
also been a real shift on Capitol Hill
on the issue.”
Would meeting the terms of the
Kyoto Protocol harm the U.S.
economy?
Jan. 26, 2001
47
GLOBAL WARMING TREATY
U.S. Produces Most Greenhouse Gases
The United States produces about a quarter of the world’s carbondioxide emissions — the major cause of global warming. While U.S.
emissions are expected to drop to 21 percent of the total by 2020,
those from China and the rest of the developing world will rise from
the current 38 percent to 50 percent.
Worldwide Carbon Emissions by Region, 1996
OECD*
Members in Europe
and Asia
United
States
24%
38%
China and
rest of
developing world
24%
14%
Former Soviet Union
and Eastern Europe
* Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
Source: Environmental Protection Agency Web site on global warming:
www.epa.gov/global...missions/international/projections.html.
If scientists find it hard to determine how fast Earth’s atmosphere is
heating up and exactly what global
warming will do to the environment,
economists are equally at a loss over
how much it will cost to deal with the
problem. Like the scientists, economists must rely on models, which are
only as accurate as the assumptions
on which they are based. As a result,
the estimates of what American taxpayers can expect to pay to reduce
carbon emissions by 7 percent below
1990 levels, as required by the Kyoto
Protocol, vary widely.
According to the economic consulting firm Wharton Econometric
Forecasting Associates (WEFA),
“meeting the goal of the Kyoto Protocol would be a daunting task.” 8
48
CQ Researcher
Because greenhouse gas emissions
in the United States have continued
to rise since 1990, reaching that target would require a more than 50
percent per capita cut in carbon
emissions by 2012. A change of that
magnitude, WEFA predicts, would result in a doubling of energy prices,
throw 2.4 million people out of work
and reduce average annual household income by almost $2,700.
“The high cost estimates reported
would only be justified if catastrophic
climate change were imminent,”
WEFA concludes. “As global warming may be gradual and largely due
to natural causes, measures that more
closely link economic cost to the stillpotential threat of very long-term
global warming may be more appro-
priate.” Like many skeptical scientists, these economists suggest that a
better approach would involve more
research and greater reliance on
voluntary actions.
WEFA estimates that the United
States would have to pay a “carbon
price” — the amount of money it
would cost to reduce emissions by a
ton of carbon — of $360 to meet its
Kyoto obligations. But President
Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers estimated the carbon price would
be only $20 a ton and cost the average household only about $70 to
$110 a year. 9 Part of the discrepancy
is due to the administration’s expectation that the United States would be
able to meet much of its carbonreduction target by buying carbon
credits from other countries, one of
the flexible approaches allowed by
the Kyoto Protocol.
According to five Energy Department laboratories, there are many
relatively painless steps Americans
can take to reduce carbon emissions
without having to rely on international emissions trading. In fact, the
labs recently outlined a scenario in
which the economic benefits from
expanding wind, biomass, energy
efficiency and other “green” industries would outweigh the costs resulting from job losses in coal, railroad
and other industries associated with
high carbon emissions. 10
A key element of the plan would
mirror an existing requirement for
reducing sulfur-dioxide emissions by
setting up a similar requirement for
carbon dioxide and letting companies that surpass the target sell their
excess credits to non-compliant companies. Raising auto fuel-efficiency
standards and increasing spending
on energy research also would help
reduce greenhouse gas emissions
without harming the economy, according to the report. 11
Some environmental groups claim
that meeting the Kyoto goals are not
only painless but will actually benefit
the economy by providing opportunities to develop renewable energy
sources that will be in high demand
all over the world. The International
Project for Sustainable Energy Paths,
a private research organization in El
Cerrito, Calif., estimates that the
United States could gain $200 billion
from implementing the Kyoto Protocol due to productivity growth resulting from developing renewable energy sources. 12
Most experts place the anticipated
economic impact of Kyoto somewhere
between the extremes cited. “If you’re
going to actually stop using coal, it’s
not going to be free,” says Clausen,
whose center will soon issue its own
estimate of the costs associated with
Kyoto. “There certainly will be distributive effects, as some regions and some
sectors will be hurt. But the economy
as a whole probably isn’t going to suffer greatly. We can sustain economic
growth and deal with this problem at
the same time.”
Several large corporations that
once dismissed global warming as a
flawed theory seem to agree and have
announced plans to voluntarily reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
They include oil giants BP Amoco
PLC and Shell International, chemicals manufacturer DuPont Co. and
aluminum producers Alcan Aluminum Ltd. of Canada and Pechiney SA
of France, all major emitters of greenhouse gases.
Whatever the initial cost incurred
by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, some scientists say it will be
outweighed by the benefits that will
follow over the long term. “Our industry and technology hold the key
to solving the climate problem,”
Hansen says. By reducing air pollution, improving energy efficiency and
developing renewable energy
sources, he says, the United States
will win out in the end. “Collateral
benefits — improved public health
CQ on the Web: www.cq.com
and reduced dependence on foreign
energy sources — can alone justify
the cost.”
Should the United States be
allowed to use flexible mechanisms to meet its emissions
target?
Because the United States is by far
the biggest single source of greenhouse
gas emissions, it must reduce more
greenhouse emissions than any other
country under the Kyoto Protocol. “The
United States is taking on the heaviest
load in order to meet its Kyoto targets,”
says U.S. negotiator Loy. “It has to reduce emissions by an average amount
of around 600 million metric tons a year.
That’s more than anybody else, in part
because we have such a large and
healthy economy.”
U.S. negotiators successfully argued that the country could not
shoulder such an onerous burden
solely by switching to non-fossil fuels or improving energy efficiency.
To achieve emissions reductions of
that magnitude, the United States
insisted that the Kyoto Protocol allow
countries to use so-called “flexible
mechanisms,” which enable countries
to buy excess emission credits from
other countries like Russia and
Ukraine, whose faltering economies
emit fewer greenhouse gases than
they did in the benchmark year of
1990. By some calculations, the
United States could reduce the cost
of meeting its Kyoto target by more
than one half by purchasing such
emission credits. 13 Another flexible
mechanism allows signatories to get
credit for planting trees and other
crops that serve as carbon sinks by
removing carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere.
“The very essence of the Kyoto
Protocol is tough, meaningful, legally
binding targets, but flexibility to meet
them,” Loy says. “Not only were [flexible mechanisms] foreseen in the
Kyoto Protocol; we would not have
signed it if they hadn’t been in there.”
Calling those trying to limit that flexibility “somewhat misguided,” he
cautioned, “If they prevail it would
make it very hard for the United
States to play a part at all.”
The protocol does not spell out
the degree to which a country may
rely on flexible mechanisms to meet
its emissions target. Thus, when signatories met in The Hague to hammer out the details, delegates from
the European Union (EU), backed by
many environmental organizations,
were outraged that the United States
wanted to rely on emissions trading
and carbon sinks to achieve the bulk
of its emission reductions.
“The United States went into the
negotiations trying to get credit for
forests that were already growing,”
explains Krupp of Environmental Defense. “It was a pretty grabby position and overaggressive, in my view,
and it was opposed by the entire
environmental community in the
United States and around the world.
In essence, the United States was
trying to renegotiate its Kyoto target
for reductions downward to make it
less onerous.
And while I believe we should
allow the use of avoided deforestation and reward farmers for planting
trees, I don’t think the United States
deserves credit for forests that were
already growing before 1990.” Research has shown that reforestation
since the 1800s of abandoned farmland in North America absorbs as
much as half the carbon dioxide
emitted from the United States each
year. 14
Delegates from European countries, which have long practiced fuel
efficiency in the form of smaller cars
and higher fuel taxes relative to those
in the United States, rejected the U.S.
proposals as a cynical attempt to
avoid making the behavioral changes
needed to reduce carbon emissions.
“There’s no ambiguity about the fact
Jan. 26, 2001
49
GLOBAL WARMING TREATY
that the European Union considers
Kyoto’s [flexible] mechanisms are
completely legitimate,” says Michel
Mousel, chairman of the French
government’s Interministerial Mission
on the Greenhouse Effect. “The problem is how those mechanisms are
used.”
Mousel, who coordinated the European Union’s positions on Kyoto
during France’s recent turn at the EU
presidency, questions the United
States’ attempt to exploit the economic downturn in Russia and
Ukraine as a “rather artificial” source
of emission credits. He also points
out that U.S. policy-makers are not
the only ones who face the politically
difficult task of explaining to their
fellow citizens why they should accept unpopular measures.
Some U.S. experts say the Europeans have a point. “I think the Europeans by and large see this as a
behavioral problem,” Clausen says.
“If only we would keep our houses
colder in the winter and warmer in
the summer, and if only we would
use public transportation, they say,
we could deal with this problem.
There’s enormous suspicion on the
part of the Europeans that the United
States wants to get away without
doing anything, and quite honestly,
the United States helps them believe
this by the way it behaves.”
Tom Wigley, a climate scientist at
the National Center for Atmospheric
Research in Boulder, Colo., and an
IPCC contributor, says his research
shows that carbon sinks are less effective in reducing emissions than
was once thought. “In the long run,
using carbon sinks to reach a Kyoto
target has only limited scope,” he
says. “So in the long run, the United
States, and everybody else, is going
to have to bite the bullet and get
down to reducing industrial emissions. Countries that bite this bullet
earlier may end up with technological and economic advantages.”
50
CQ Researcher
Loy continues to defend the U.S.
position. “To some extent, behavioral changes may be necessary, but
we ought to focus on reducing tons
[of carbon emissions] any way we
can and ought not to make behavioral changes the goal. It’s a means
to a goal, but not the goal.”
Indeed, he says that trying to reduce emissions through immediate
fuel switching and other behavioral
changes would be self-defeating. “In
some respects that is an unrealistic
goal, and if we set unrealistic goals,
we’re going to fail,” he says.
“So here we are in the odd situation of desperately trying to work
our way into an agreement that is
going to impose upon us very heavy
obligations and in the process getting
blamed for not doing it. It ought to
be in the interest of other countries
to get us in the agreement, and I
would have to say that the European
Union has missed that point somewhat.”
BACKGROUND
Greenhouse Effect
T
here’s nothing intrinsically wrong
with the greenhouse effect. Indeed, by preventing some of the sun’s
heat from rising back into space,
greenhouse gases have permitted life
as we know it to evolve on Earth.
Without greenhouse gases, Earth’s
mean global temperature of 60˚F
would be around 0˚F — far too cold
for many familiar plant and animal
species to have evolved and flourished.
Although some scientists continue
to dispute the findings, most recognize that temperatures have been
rising, as Arrhenius predicted, since
they were first recorded in the 1860s.
The primary culprit, in this view, is
the increase in carbon dioxide emissions, which is released during the
burning of oil, gasoline, coal and
natural gas.
Since the Industrial Revolution in
the 19th century and the subsequent
spread of fossil fuel consumption,
carbon emissions have risen dramatically, from the pre-industrial level of
about 280 parts per million to more
than 360 parts per million today. 15
Eighty percent of today’s carbon
emissions come from burning fossil
fuels to power cars and trucks, heat
and cool homes and businesses and
run factories. Because plants absorb
carbon dioxide during photosynthesis, deforestation and other landclearing operations increase carbon
dioxide levels, which are expected to
double in the next century.
Although carbon dioxide is by far
the main culprit in global warming,
other gases also contribute. The second largest source of greenhouse
gases is methane, which is emitted
from wetlands, including rice paddies, and other natural sources. But
today more than half of methane
emissions come from municipal landfills and industrial processes like coal,
oil, gas and livestock production.
Methane levels have more than
doubled since the mid-1800s, and
because the gas remains in the atmosphere longer, are expected to double
by 2100.
Concentrations of another greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide, also are
expected to continue increasing rapidly. The gas is released from fertilizers and some industrial processes.
About 20 percent of nitrous oxide
emissions come from power plants
and transportation sources.
Power plants that burn coal also
emit sulfur dioxide, another greenhouse gas. Projections about future
concentrations of sulfur dioxide are
Continued on p. 52
Chronology
1970s-1980s 1990s
Scientists warn that fossil-fuel
consumption is causing a rise
in global temperatures.
April 1970
The first Earth Day celebration
launches the environmental
movement in the United States.
1972
A 113-nation conference held in
Stockholm, Sweden, leads to the
creation of the United Nations
Environmental Program (UNEP)
and several other U.N. agencies
that help galvanize support for
subsequent environmentalprotection treaties.
1988
The United States and 46 other
countries sign the Montreal
Protocol on Substances That
Deplete the Ozone, pledging to
reduce their production and use
of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),
manmade chemicals that destroy
the stratospheric ozone layer.
June 1988
NASA climatologist James E.
Hansen testifies that “the greenhouse effect has been detected,
and it is changing our climate
now,” prompting intense media
coverage and catapulting global
warming to the top of the
environmental community’s
policy agenda.
1989
Major corporations and trade
associations form the Global
Climate Coalition to fight U.S.
participation in an international
effort to curb global warming.
CQ on the Web: www.cq.com
A treaty to curb
greenhouse-gas emissions
takes shape.
May 1992
The United States and some 170
other countries meet for the first
U.N. Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro and sign the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate
Change, in which industrial
countries voluntarily agree to cut
greenhouse-gas emissions to
their 1990 levels by 2000.
Oct. 15, 1992
The U.S. Senate ratifies the framework convention, which enters
into force on March 21, 1994.
1995
The U.N. International Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) reports
that “the balance of evidence
suggests a discernible human
influence on global climate.”
Dec. 11, 1997
More than 150 countries meeting
in Kyoto, Japan, agree in a
protocol to the framework convention that industrial countries
will reduce their emissions of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to 5 percent below
1990 levels by 2012. As the
world’s largest greenhouse-gas
polluter, the United States agrees
to cut its emissions by 7 percent.
The same year, the Senate passes
a resolution, sponsored by Sens.
Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., and
Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., barring the
Kyoto Protocol’s ratification as
long as it exempts developing
countries and causes “serious
harm” to the U.S. economy.
Nov. 12, 1998
The United States formally signs
the Kyoto Protocol, but President
Bill Clinton says he will not
submit it for Senate ratification
until developing countries, which
are expected to become the
leading group of greenhouse-gas
polluters in coming years, agree
to limit their emissions as well.
1998
The United States registers its
warmest year on record.
•
2000s
Controversy
builds over U.S. proposals to
use emission credits to meet
much of its Kyoto target.
Nov. 13-24, 2000
Kyoto Protocol signatories meet
in The Hague, Netherlands, to
implement the agreement. The
negotiations deadlock, however,
over a dispute between European and U.S. delegates over
U.S. proposals to use emission
credits from less-polluting countries to meet its targets instead
of actually reducing U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases.
Jan. 22, 2001
The IPCC presents delegates at a
U.N. conference in Shanghai,
China, with its most forceful
warning to date on the threat of
climate change.
May 2001
Parties to the Kyoto Protocol are
scheduled to resume negotiations
in Bonn, Germany.
Jan. 26, 2001
51
GLOBAL WARMING TREATY
Continued from p. 50
less clear, because of the uncertain
impact of policies aimed at curbing
emissions of this gas, which also
cause acid rain.
Several manmade gases, all generated by industrial processes, also
contribute to global warming, including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),
hydrofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and
perfluorocarbons (PFCs). The production and use of CFCs, once a widely
used refrigerant and coolant, has
been linked to the destruction of the
ozone layer, which protects Earth
from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet
rays. CFCs have been drastically
curtailed by the Montreal
Protocol, an international
treaty that calls for them to
be eventually phased out
worldwide. HCFCs and PFCs
were introduced as substitutes for CFCs because they
are less harmful to the ozone
layer.
Many scientists point to a
number of environmental
changes as evidence that
greenhouse warming is already well under way. First,
global mean surface temperatures have increased by as
much as 1.2˚F since the late
1800s. The 10 warmest years
of the 20th century all occurred after
1985, and 1998 was the warmest year
on record. Arctic ice has thinned
measurably, as have glaciers in South
America and snow cover in North
America. Ice and snow melting is
blamed for a 4- to 10-inch rise in sea
level over the past 100 years. There
has been a slight increase in precipitation over land, and extreme weather
has been reported throughout the
world.
If all these phenomena are indeed
caused by global warming, scientists
warn, far more serious consequences
may be in store. Many studies predict
a rise in average global surface tem-
52
CQ Researcher
perature of 1.6˚ to 6.3˚ F by 2100.
Warming is expected to increase
evaporation, thus increasing precipitation. Melting snow and ice may
raise the sea level by as much as two
feet, inundating many coastal regions
and some entire South Pacific island
nations. Although scientists acknowledge the difficulty of predicting global warming’s impact on specific
locales, certain regions are expected
to fare better than others.
As the world’s leading industrial
nation, the United States accounts
for the lion’s share of greenhouse
gas emissions. With just 4 percent of
the world’s population, the United
With just 4 percent of the
world’s population, the
United States produces about
a quarter of all greenhouse
gases, primarily because it
gets 80 percent of its energy
from fossil fuels.
States produces about a quarter of
all greenhouse gases, primarily because it gets 80 percent of its energy
from fossil fuels.
Road to Kyoto
A
s evidence of rising global temperatures emerged in the 1960s
and 1970s, scientists began to suspect that Arrhenius was right. In the
United States, congressional committees began holding hearings to examine the issue in the early 1980s.
But the issue did not gain widespread attention until June 1988,
when NASA climatologist Hansen
testified that “the greenhouse effect
has been detected, and it is changing
our climate now.” 16 Hansen’s testimony prompted intense media coverage and catapulted global warming
to the top of the environmental
community’s policy agenda.
The U.N. created the IPCC partly
in response to Hansen’s testimony. In
its first report, in 1990, the panel
predicted carbon dioxide emissions
would double and global temperatures would increase over the next
century. It also warned that potentially extreme weather patterns could threaten food
supplies. The panel’s 1995
report was even direr, as was
the summary of its forthcoming 2001 report.
For its part, the General
Assembly created a special
committee, whose work culminated in 1992 with a treaty
called the U.N. Framework
Convention on Climate
Change. The voluntary
agreement’s goal was to cut
greenhouse gas emissions
by developed countries to
1990 levels by 2000. When
the treaty was opened for
signature on May 9 that year at the
first U.N. Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro, more than 170 countries,
including the United States, signed
it. On Oct. 15, 1992, the U.S. Senate
ratified the treaty. After the required
50 governments ratified the framework treaty, it entered into force on
March 21, 1994.
But low energy prices spurred
even higher consumption of fossil
fuels in the United States and other
industrialized countries, making it all
but certain that the treaty’s emission
cutbacks would not be met. The
Republican-dominated Senate, meanwhile, approved the non-binding
Big Firms Pledge to Curb Emissions
C
orporate America has done an about-face on global
warming in the past few years.
In 1989, major corporations and trade associations
formed the Global Climate Coalition to fight U.S.
participation in an international effort to curb global
warming. Citing a number of scientific skeptics, the coalition
disputed the theory that carbon dioxide and other gases
emitted by burning fossil fuels were causing a potentially
devastating warming of Earth’s atmosphere.
As international support for a global-warming treaty
built, the coalition stepped up its lobbying effort to
convince lawmakers to oppose the 1997 treaty, called the
Kyoto Protocol. Coalition members considered the
agreement’s legally binding targets for reducing carbon
emissions a threat to their businesses.
But several large companies now see business opportunities
in the shift toward alternatives to fossil fuels, the main
source of U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases. Some energy producers have diversified
their operations to include renewable energy sources, such
as wind, geothermal and solar power, as well as oil, gas and
coal extraction. Manufacturers of industrial and consumer
goods also are looking for less-polluting ways to operate.
A visible sign of the change in corporate views toward
global warming has been the exodus of several major
companies, including Ford Motor Co. and General Motors
Corp., from the Global Climate Coalition. Several firms also
have publicly pledged to voluntarily reduce their carbon
emissions and joined new organizations that support research
into global warming and promote business practices that
reduce their harmful impact on the global climate.
One such organization is the Business Environmental
Leadership Council, a group set up by the Pew Center on
Global Climate Change, which seeks economically sustainable
solutions to global warming. The 28-member council —
which includes such corporate giants as chemicals producer
DuPont, Japanese automaker Toyota, U.S. software maker
Intel and aerospace giant Boeing — agrees that the scientific
evidence of global warming is strong enough to justify seeking
ways to reduce carbon emissions.
“I think there has been a huge shift in the business
community over the last two or three years,” says Eileen
Clausen, the Pew Center’s president, who predicts that the
council’s membership will grow to around 50 companies
by late spring. “It may sound Pollyanna-ish, but a lot of
these CEOs actually believe in being good global citizens.”
The Pew Center specifically sought out members from
energy-intensive industries that have much at stake, “but
Byrd-Hagel resolution, barring U.S.
participation in any agreement limiting emissions unless it also mandated
CQ on the Web: www.cq.com
[who] also feel that global warming is a serious problem
and that something should be done about it,” she says.
Global-warming skeptics dismiss the shift in corporate
statements on the issue as a public-relations gambit. “They
are doing it entirely for PR purposes, to appear to be
concerned and green and caring for the environment,”
says S. Fred Singer, an outspoken critic of the scientific
methods used to justify mandates to reduce greenhousegas emissions. “It also allows them to become friendly
with government regulators and get better treatment for
some of their pollution problems.”
But several companies are placing their bottom lines at
risk by joining another business group, sponsored by
Environmental Defense, a New York-based organization that
seeks to involve businesses in environmental-protection
efforts. As a condition of membership, the Partnership for
Climate Action requires companies to set firm targets for
reducing their greenhouse-gas emissions. It currently includes
seven multinational corporate members (some of which also
belong to the Business Environmental Leadership Council)
that also are major carbon emitters — energy producers BP
Amoco, Shell International and Suncor of Canada; the public
Canadian electric utility Ontario Power; DuPont; and Alcan
Aluminum of Canada and Pechiney S.A. of France, respectively
the world’s second- and third-largest aluminum producers.
Fred Krupp, executive director of Environmental Defense,
thinks the shift in corporate attitudes on global warming
bodes well for the Kyoto Protocol’s eventual ratification. The
treaty is currently bogged down in controversy following the
breakdown in negotiations at last November’s meeting of
signatories in The Hague, Netherlands.
“Despite the fact that we came home from The Hague
empty-handed, it was really striking that the business
community was not there in force rejecting the agreement,
as it had been in each and every one of the preceding
conferences of the parties to Kyoto,” Krupp says. “Indeed,
many businesses issued statements of disappointment when
an agreement failed to be reached.”
According to Krupp, the combined greenhouse-gas
emissions of these companies equal those of Spain, the
world’s 12th largest industrialized nation. They have
pledged to reduce their emissions by a total of 80 million
tons a year by 2010.
“Companies are increasingly recognizing the problem
of global warming and doing something about it,” says
Krupp, who expects more major corporations to join the
partnership in coming months. “In fact, you’d have to say
they’re ahead of the governments on this issue.”
specific commitments for developing
countries.
The United States then led a call
to transform the voluntary effort into
legally binding emission goals. But
significant disagreements among the
Jan. 26, 2001
53
GLOBAL WARMING TREATY
AFP Photos/Toussaint Kluiters
treaty’s signatories emerged that achieving bigger reductions in order to The protocol allows these “transition”
threatened to stop the process in its reduce the burden for poorer members countries flexibility to meet their
tracks.
like Portugal and Spain. Britain could Kyoto goals. For Russia, for example,
The EU called for aggressive cuts, accept these conditions because it had the goal is to emit no more greento 15 percent below 1990 emission recently switched to natural gas to pro- house gases than it did in 1990, before
levels by 2010, with trade sanctions duce electricity, while Germany had al- its economy collapsed.
against countries that failed to com- ready closed down most of the heavily
A heated debate ensued over the
ply. Japan supported a more-lenient polluting power plants it had inherited role developing nations such as
5 percent cut. Developing countries, from the former East Germany. 17 As the China and India should play in efprotesting that they had not caused world’s biggest polluter, the United forts to halt global warming. Althe problem, said
though these countries
they should be exhave produced a very
empt. Instead they
small portion of emiscalled for the indussions over the past
trial world to slash
century, they are playtheir own emissions
ing an ever-increasing
by 35 percent by
role. And because
2020. President
these countries rely on
Clinton sought the
coal and other heavily
middle ground, callpolluting fuels to
ing for relatively
power their economodest but legally
mies, they are exbinding cuts, accompected to become the
panied by tax breaks
main sources of greenand other incentives
house emissions in
to encourage induscoming decades. For
trial polluters to
that reason, the United
quickly reduce their
States and Australia
supported the incluemissions.
sion of voluntary reMeeting in Kyoto
ductions for these
in 1997, treaty parcountries. But that proticipants arrived at a
vision, opposed by
compromise. Under
most other signatories,
a protocol to the
was dropped from the
framework convenfinal agreement.
tion, industrial counDemonstrators stand next to a sandbag wall they built in front of the
tries agreed Dec. 11,
Emissions trading
building in The Hague where the World Climate Conference was meeting
1997, to reduce their
was another controverlast November. Environmentalists were trying to make the point
that without serious international efforts to control global
emissions of three
sial subject in Kyoto.
warming, coastal cities could one day be flooded.
naturally occurring
Convinced that the
gases — carbon diAmerican public would
oxide, methane and
not accept the degree
nitrous oxide — by a total of 5.2 States accepted a 7 percent reduction of economic hardship required to
percent below 1990 levels, and three target, while Japan agreed to a 6 per- meet the treaty’s goals solely through
manmade gases — CFCs, HCFCs and cent cut.
consumption cutbacks, the Clinton
Russia and the other European administration demanded that counPFCs — to below 1995 levels, becountries of the former Soviet Union tries be allowed to buy emission
tween 2008 and 2012.
The size of the reductions varied and Soviet bloc received special con- credits from other countries. While
according to the circumstances of each sideration to reflect the wrenching Japan supported the U.S., the EU
country or region. The EU, for example, economic downturn they have expe- adamantly opposed it, arguing inagreed to cut overall emissions by 8 rienced following efforts to bring stead that countries should achieve
percent, with Britain and Germany them into the world trading system. most, if not all, of their emission cuts
54
CQ Researcher
by reducing the underlying sources must be ratified by 55 countries rep- Japan — pushed to include emisof greenhouse pollution at home.
resenting the sources of at least 55 sions trading and carbon sequestraAnother controversial provision percent of greenhouse-gas emissions tion credits in the rules. U.S. negoof the protocol encouraged indus- before it will have the effect of law. tiator Loy says there was an unofficial
trial countries to invest in the
understanding among the
sustainable development of
parties to the protocol that
Third World countries. Unthe United States would be
der the “clean development
allowed to take partial credit
“We Europeans may think that
mechanism,” an industrial
for the carbon sequestered
the Americans, with their big
country that assists in the
in the country’s vast forests.
construction of non-pollut“We went to Kyoto intendcars, should follow our
ing utilities and other enviing to accept a target of no
ronmentally sound enterreduction from 1990 levels,
example, with our little cars.
prises in a developing counbut we ended up with a 7
try may use that investment
percent reduction,” Loy says.
But we also must convince
to offset part of its required
“One of the ways we were
emission cuts.
able to justify that to ourour fellow citizens that we’re
A third debate arose
selves was that there was a
around the concept of “carprovision for sinks.”
going to have to pay more for
bon sequestration,” the proEuropean delegates adagas and make other changes
cess by which trees and other
mantly rejected the U.S.
plants capture carbon dioxplan. German Environment
to our way of life.”
ide from the air. The protocol
Minister Juergen Trittin, a
allowed participants to remember of the Green Party,
ceive credit for carbon seblamed the United States for
— Michel Mousel
questration resulting from the
the stalemate, charging that
Chairman
planting of trees, or carbon
the U.S wanted to gain
French Interministerial Mission
“sinks,” which affect a
“credit for natural forests as
on the Greenhouse Effect
country’s carbon emissions.
man-made carbon sinks.” 18
But measuring the amount of
Greenpeace issued a
carbon stored or released by
more pointed assessment.
planting or destroying sinks
“Governments must stop
is an inexact science, and the proto- To date, however, only about 30 acting as if this was a game,” the
col left to later talks the problem of countries — none of them major in- international environmental organihow to implement this and other dustrial nations — have ratified the zation said in a prepared statement
controversial provisions.
agreement. Although the United at the meeting’s conclusion on Nov.
States formally signed it on Nov. 12, 25. “Climate change is happening,
1998, Clinton refused to submit it for and more and more people will be
Senate ratification until developing the victims. Once again, the U.S. has
countries agreed to limit greenhouse- been successful with their favorite
gas emissions.
negotiating trick: in Kyoto they
Advocates of curbing greenhouse brought everyone down to the lowemissions had hoped that last est common denominator; and now
November’s summit would produce in The Hague they have moved away,
a consensus on how to overcome leaving everyone else at the bottom.”
some of the obstacles to ratification.
However, some European and U.S.
But the meeting, convened to nail participants struck a somewhat more
down rules for implementing the conciliatory and optimistic tone after
Kyoto agreement, ended with all the the meeting. “We Europeans may
major stumbling blocks still intact.
think that the Americans, with their
ike the framework treaty to which
The United States and three other big cars, should follow our example,
it is attached, the Kyoto Protocol countries — Australia, Canada and with our little cars,” says Mousel of
CURRENT
SITUATION
Impasse Over Kyoto
L
CQ on the Web: www.cq.com
Jan. 26, 2001
55
GLOBAL WARMING TREATY
Key Environmental Treaties
T
he Kyoto Protocol on global warming is just the
latest in a series of international treaties aimed at
protecting the environment. 1
Since the 1920s, the United States has signed more than
150 multilateral environmental agreements, most since the
environmental movement took root after the first Earth
Day was held in April 1970. Early treaties dealt primarily
with the use of common international resources like
fisheries and outer space. In 1972, the scope of
environmental diplomacy broadened after a 113-nation
conference in Stockholm, Sweden, led to the creation of
the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and
several other U.N. agencies. Those agencies helped
galvanize support for later treaties.
By the time the Earth Summit was held in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, 20 years later, 179 national delegations
attended. The 1992 meeting produced the U.N. Framework
Convention on Climate Change, calling for voluntary
reductions in emissions of gases that cause global warming.
In 1997 a third major environmental conference in Kyoto,
Japan, produced the Kyoto Protocol, which refined the
1992 framework and called on industrial nations to accept
legally binding reductions in emissions that cause global
warming by 2012.
The controversies that have weakened prospects for the
Kyoto Protocol’s ratification are in stark contrast to another
recent agreement, the 1988 Montreal Protocol on Substances
That Deplete the Ozone Layer. Like Kyoto, this treaty
required signatories to curb emissions of gases harmful to
the global environment. But the comparisons end there.
The Montreal agreement stemmed from the 1985
discovery of a vast and growing hole in the ozone layer
over Antarctica. Unlike ground-level ozone, which is a
major air pollutant, the stratospheric ozone layer filters
out part of the sun’s ultraviolet radiation before it can
reach the Earth’s surface, where it can cause skin cancer
and cataracts in humans and disrupt plant growth. The
discovery of the ozone hole verified scientists’ earlier
the French mission. “But we also
must convince our fellow citizens that
we’re going to have to pay more for
gas and make other changes to our
way of life.”
He is confident that significant
greenhouse gas reductions can be
achieved without threatening the well
being of people in either the United
States or Europe. “The policies that
we need to adopt are not policies
that lower people’s standard of liv-
56
CQ Researcher
warnings that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) — long-lasting,
manmade gases used in air-conditioning, refrigerators and
foam insulation — could destroy the ozone layer over
time.
Barely two years after the discovery of the ozone hole,
the United States, which accounted for a third of global
CFC production, joined 46 other countries in pledging to
reduce their production and use of CFCs by specific dates.
As subsequent scientific data showed a worsening of the
problem and implicated several other industrial chemicals
in ozone depletion, the Montreal signatories later agreed
to broaden the list of chemicals covered by the agreement
and quicken the pace of their phaseout. More than 120
other countries also signed on to the agreement.
“The Montreal Protocol dealt with a very finite problem,”
says Eileen Clausen, president of the Pew Center on Global
Climate Change. Clausen helped draft the Montreal Protocol
when she worked as an official in the Environmental
Protection Agency and later in the State Department. “While
there were a lot of users of these chemicals, we were
dealing with only a small number of producer companies.
And they eventually accepted the idea that they had to do
something about the problem, so they came up with
substitutes.”
The Kyoto Protocol addresses a far more complex
problem — carbon dioxide and the other gases that are
emitted when fossil fuels are burned by virtually every
industry, vehicle and dwelling in the world.
“Energy is what drives the global economy, so it’s
much more fundamental, much more difficult to address,
and the stakes are much bigger,” Clausen says in explaining
why the Kyoto Protocol has become mired in controversy.
“If we can’t make it work, we’ll have to figure out some
other way to deal with the problem, because the problem
isn’t going to go away, even if Kyoto goes away.”
1
For more information, see Walter A. Rosenbaum, Environmental
Politics and Policy (1998).
ing,” he says. “What we’re seeking
on both sides of the Atlantic is not
some kind of austerity. It is entirely
possible to live satisfying lives while
at the same time showing greater
respect for the environment.”
Ultimately, he says, it is up to the
political leaders on both continents
to convince their electorates to embrace the Kyoto goals. “The American citizen is perfectly capable, as
is the European citizen, of under-
standing that certain other ways of
organizing their lives are not necessarily so unpleasant,” he says. “The
most important thing — breaching
the barrier between accepting the
existence of global warming and
taking personal responsibility for its
solution — is always the most difficult.”
Environmental advocates point to
numerous ways that American conContinued on p. 58
At Issue:
Is there convincing scientific evidence of global warming?
ROBERT T. WATSON
CHAIRMAN, INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL
S. FRED SINGER
ON
CLIMATE CHANGE
PRESIDENT, SCIENCE
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROJECT
FROM TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE COMMERCE, SCIENCE
AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, MAY 17, 2000
FROM TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE COMMERCE, SCIENCE
AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, JULY 18, 2000.
arth’s climate has been relatively stable during the
present interglacial [period] — that is, the past 10,000
years. During this time, modern society has evolved
and, in many cases, successfully adapted to the prevailing
local climate and its natural variability.
However, the Earth’s climate is now changing. The Earth’s
surface temperature this century is as warm or warmer than
any other century during the last 1,000 years. [It] has increased
by between 0.4˚ and 0.8˚C [0.72˚F – 1.44˚F] over the last
century, with land areas warming more than the oceans.
And the last few decades have been the hottest this century.
Indeed, the three warmest years during the last 100 years all
occurred in the 1990s, and the 12 warmest years . . . occurred
since 1983.
In addition, there is evidence of changes in sea level; that
glaciers are retreating worldwide; that Arctic sea ice is
thinning, precipitation patterns are changing and that the
incidence of extreme weather events is increasing in some
parts of the world.
Not only is there evidence of a change in climate at the
global level, but there is [also] observational evidence that
the U.S. climate is changing in a manner consistent with that
predicted by climate models: increased temperatures (day
and night), more intense rainfall events, increased precipitation in winter. . . .
Based on the range of climate sensitivities . . . and plausible
ranges of greenhouse gas and sulfur-dioxide emissions, climate
models project that the global mean surface temperature could
increase by 1˚-5˚C [2˚F – 9˚F] by 2100. These projected global
average temperature changes would be greater than recent
natural fluctuations and would also occur at a rate significantly
faster than observed changes over the last 10,000 years. These
long-term, large-scale, human-induced changes are likely to
interact with natural climate variability on time-scales of days to
decades. . . .
Associated with these estimated temperature changes, sea
level is projected to increase by 10-90 centimeters [3.9 – 35.4
inches] by 2100, caused primarily by thermal expansion of
the oceans and the melting of glaciers.
However, it should be noted that even when the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are stabilized,
temperatures will continue to increase for several decades
because of the thermal inertia of the climate system, and sea
level [will increase] for an even longer period of time.
e hold a skeptical view of the climate science that
forms the basis of the National Assessment on
Climate Change because we see no evidence to back
its findings. Climate-model exercises are not evidence. . . .
Contrary to the conventional wisdom and the predictions
of computer models, the Earth’s climate has not warmed
appreciably in the past two decades, and probably not since
about 1940. The evidence is abundant.
Satellite data show no appreciable warming of the global
atmosphere since 1979. In fact, if one ignores the unusual El
Niño [weather during] . . . 1998, one sees a cooling trend.
Data from balloons released regularly around the world
confirm the satellite data in every respect. The well-controlled and reliable thermometer record of surface temperatures for the continental United States shows no appreciable
warming since about 1940. The same is true for Western
Europe.
These results are in sharp contrast to the global instrumental surface record, which shows substantial warming,
mainly in northwest Siberia and subpolar Alaska and
Canada. But tree-ring records for Siberia and Alaska and
published ice-core records that I have examined show no
warming since 1940. In fact, many show a cooling trend. . . .
The most widely feared and also most misunderstood
consequence of a hypothetical greenhouse warming is an
accelerated rise in sea levels. But several facts contradict this
conventional view. Global average sea level has risen about
400 feet in the past 15,000 years as a result of the end of
the Ice Age.
Once the large ice masses covering North America and
north Europe had melted away, the initial rapid rise of
about 80 inches per century gradually changed to a slower
rise of 6-8 inches per century about 7,500 years ago. But the
slow melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet continued and
will continue, barring another ice age, until it has melted
away in about 6,000 years.
This means that the world is stuck with a sea-level rise of
about 7 inches a year, just what was observed during the
past century. And there is nothing we can do about it, any
more than we can stop the ocean tides.
The bottom line: Currently available scientific evidence
does not support any of the results of the National Assessment on Climate Change, which should therefore be viewed
merely as a “what if” exercise. . . .
e
w
yes no
CQ on the Web: www.cq.com
Jan. 26, 2001
57
GLOBAL WARMING TREATY
Continued from p. 56
Newsmakers/Joe Raedle
But when it comes to global warmPress coverage of the climate debate
sumers could make a difference in was scant, since it occurred in the ing, which environmentalists call the
carbon emissions without severely middle of the aftermath of the clos- most serious threat to global security,
disrupting their lifestyles, according est presidential election in U.S. his- many Americans seem less conto Environmental Defense. Filling tory and the subsequent legal battles cerned. The issue hardly arose in the
the dishwasher completely before over the recount. And there was vir- presidential election debate, even as
running it and letting the dishes air- tually no reaction from Congress. the Clinton negotiating team was
dry, for example, would save 200 Plus, the American public is ambiva- preparing to take its proposals to The
pounds of carbon dioxide emissions lent toward the global-warming is- Hague.
each year per household. Washing sue itself.
Some would say otherwise enviclothes in warm or cold water inOpinion polls suggest that Ameri- ronmentally conscious Americans
stead of hot water would save up to cans strongly support basic environ- have a blind spot when it comes to
500 pounds a year for a household mental-protection laws. When asked global warming. Many of the same
doing two weekly
people who faithfully
loads of laundry.
recycle their houseAnd trading a car in
hold waste drive
for one that gets 10
hugely popular sportmore miles per galutility vehicles, even
lon could save a
though these gas-guzwhopping 2,500
zlers emit more carpounds of carbon
bon dioxide than
emissions a year. 19
smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. When
The Hague sumgasoline prices rose
mit was not a comsuddenly last summer,
plete wash, howthe governors of Illiever. A number of
nois and Indiana tembusiness leaders
porarily suspended
went to the meeting
their states’ fuel taxes,
and expressed a
and then-Sen. Spencer
willingness to do
Abraham, R-Mich.,
their part to reduce
now
the
Bush
carbon emissions,
Traffic backs up on Highway 35 in Austin, Texas, in mid-January.
administration’s Enwith or without a
Pollutants emitted by cars and light trucks are a major source of
greenhouse gases implicated in global warming.
ergy secretary spontreaty. “The business
sored a bill to suspend
community’s particithe federal gasoline
pation shows that
progress was made, even in the ab- to grade the government’s perfor- tax. The bill never made it to the
sence of a final agreement,” Krupp mance in protecting the environ- Senate floor, even though U.S. fuel
says. “We have a lot of momentum, ment, 58 percent of respondents in taxes are far lower than those in
and it’s likely that we will forge an April 2000 Gallup Poll said the Europe.
government was doing too little. And
ahead.”
If concern about the cost of reduc67 percent agreed that environmen- ing America’s greenhouse-gas emistal protection should be given pri- sions is the main obstacle to gaining
ority even at the risk of curbing broader public support for such an
economic growth. A sizable 71 per- effort, Hansen has some good news.
cent claimed they were either symLast year the scientist who sounded
pathetic with or active in the envi- the modern-day alarm about the threat
hile environmental activists ronmental movement. 20 And Ameri- of climate change published new studwere appalled by the break- cans eagerly participate in curbside ies suggesting that significant improvedown in negotiations in The Hague, recycling programs in an effort to ments in greenhouse-gas emissions can
the diplomatic impasse went almost reduce the strain on the country’s be achieved with relatively painless
unnoticed by the rest of America. crowded landfills. 21
measures that would improve air qual-
Domestic Debate
W
58
CQ Researcher
ity as well. He and his colleagues discovered that two common ground-level
air pollutants that are not included in
the Kyoto Protocol targets — tropospheric ozone and black-carbon aerosols — are important contributors to
global warming. Although further efforts are needed to slow carbon-dioxide emissions to halt further warming,
Hansen says, reducing emissions of
these two pollutants would go far toward meeting that goal.
Because the United States and
other industrial countries already
possess effective technology to combat ground-level air pollution, Hansen
says they could help overcome developing-nation opposition to joining the Kyoto process by helping
them clean up their increasingly serious air pollution and move more
quickly to centralized electrical power
production. “It’s tremendously to the
advantage of the developing world
to reduce the growth rate of its own
air pollution,” he says. “They also
need to move in the direction of
electrical networks for power, as
opposed to burning fuels like coal in
individual households. So this approach offers economic opportunities for both sides.”
OUTLOOK
Abandon the Treaty?
I
f global warming has receded from
the public view, a lively debate
about the prospects for Kyoto and
what the United States should do
about it continues among scientists
and some policy-makers. The breakdown in negotiations has prompted
global-warming skeptics to call for
the United States to abandon the
Kyoto Protocol altogether.
CQ on the Web: www.cq.com
“I think the protocol and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change form artificial pressures that
have nothing to do with the normal
evolution of the science,” IPCC dissident Lindzen says. He and other
skeptics say a better solution, in the
unlikely event of global warming,
would be to utilize man’s proven
genius at adapting to adverse weather
conditions.
“We’ve always done that, ever since
we invented the house and the umbrella,” Lindzen says. “That’s something
we’re good at. Even if you take some of
the more extreme model predictions, it
really doesn’t look like there would be
a loss for most of the world. So not only
is there demonization of carbon dioxide, which is a natural product of respiration, but they’re demonizing warmth
to an extent that doesn’t make much
intuitive sense. I mean, how many
people do you know who retire to the
Northwest Territories?”
Most experts stop far short of this
advice, however. “It’s premature to
say [the Kyoto Protocol] is dead,”
says Loy, who stepped down as U.S.
negotiator on Jan. 20. “If you want
an international solution, as opposed
to a series of unrelated solutions, to
climate change, finding a substitute
for Kyoto is not easy. It’s easy
enough to say let’s junk the thing,
but I don’t think that’s very constructive unless you have an alternative that makes environmental,
economic and political sense.”
Other experts blame Kyoto’s unrealistic targets for today’s diplomatic
impasse. “I think as a practical matter
the United States is unable to meet
its target because of the amount of
time it would take,” says Clausen of
the Pew Center on Global Climate
Change. “I also don’t think many
countries in Europe will make their
targets either, which leads to the
bigger discussion about how you
eventually deal with the targets.”
Although Clausen stops short of
suggesting that the Kyoto targets be
renegotiated, she says they have
adversely distracted negotiators from
the basic goal laid out in the original
Framework Convention on Climate
Change, which called on developed
countries to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels.
“Part of the motivation for the U.S.
position on carbon sinks was an effort
to meet the foolish target [mandated
under the protocol],” she says. “If
they hadn’t been worrying about the
target they wouldn’t have asked for
credit for doing nothing. So why don’t
we just get the framework right and
then figure out what to do about
targets? The Bush administration
might not find that such a terrible
strategy.”
Notes
1
For background, see Mary H. Cooper, “Global Warming Update,” The CQ Researcher,
Nov. 1, 1996, pp. 961-984.
2
For background, see Mary H. Cooper,
“National Forests,” The CQ Researcher, Oct.
16, 1998, pp. 905-928.
About the Author
Mary H. Cooper specializes in environmental, energy and defense issues
and is the author of The Business of Drugs (CQ Press, 1990). Last December
she spoke on energy prices at an international conference in Paris held by
The French Center on the United States, a part of the French Institute on
International Relations. Before joining The CQ Researcher in 1983, she was
Washington correspondent for the Rome daily newspaper, l’Unita’.
Jan. 26, 2001
59
GLOBAL WARMING TREATY
3
For background, see Mary H. Cooper,
“The Politics of Energy,” The CQ Researcher,
March 5, 1999, pp. 185-208.
4
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), “Second Assessment Report: Climate Change,” 1995.
5
IPCC, “Third Assessment Report: Climate
Change 2001: The Scientific Basis; Summary for Policymakers,” Jan. 21, 2001, p. 6.
6
See Peter Capella, “2000 Was Hot, Say
Scientists,” The Guardian, Dec. 20, 2000.
7
See James O. Jackson, “Global Warming:
Are Europe’s Floods, Gales and Droughts
Here to Stay? Yes, Say the Experts — and
It Could Get Worse,” Time International,
Nov. 13, 2000.
8
Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates, “Global Warming: The High Cost of
the Kyoto Protocol,” Executive Summary,
1998, p. 2.
9
See “Global Warming Report Says Remedies Affordable,” Los Angeles Times, Aug.
1, 1998.
10
Interlaboratory Working Group, “Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future,” November 2000 (Oak Ridge, Lawrence Berkeley,
Argonne and Pacific Northwest National
Laboratories and National Renewable Energy Laboratory).
11
For background, see David Masci, “Auto
Industry’s Future,” The CQ Researcher, Jan.
21, 2000, pp. 17-40 and Mary H. Cooper,
“Energy and the Environment,” The CQ Researcher, March 3, 2000, pp. 174-197.
12
International Project for Sustainable Energy Paths, “Solving the Kyoto Quandary:
Flexibility with No Regrets,” Nov. 12, 2000.
For background, see Mary H. Cooper, “Renewable Energy,” The CQ Researcher, Nov.
7, 1997, pp. 961-984.
13
See “Emission Impossible?” Foreign
Policy, November-December 2000, p. 31.
14
John P. Caspersen, et al., “Land Use and
the Carbon Sink,” Science, Nov. 10, 2000.
15
Unless otherwise noted, information in this
section is based on the Environmental Protection Agency’s global warming Web site,
www.epa.gov/globalwarming, and “The View
From Earth Day 2000: Thirty Years of Global
Warming,” www.environmentaldefense.org.
16
See Daniel Sarewitz and Roger Pielke Jr.,
“Breaking the Global-Warming Gridlock,”
The Atlantic Monthly, July 2000.
60
CQ Researcher
Environmental Defense, 257 Park Ave. South, New York, N.Y. 10010;
(212) 505-2100; www.environmentaldefense.org. This nonprofit organization, formerly called the Environmental Defense Fund, seeks economically
viable solutions to global warming and other environmental problems.
Global Climate Coalition, 1275 K St. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005;
(202) 682-9161; www.globalclimate.org. Founded by a group of corporations and trade associations, the coalition lobbies in opposition to U.S.
ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.
Greenpeace USA, Washington Office, 1436 U St., N.W., Washington, D.C.
20009; (202) 462-11767; www.greenpeaceusa.org. Seeks to protect the
environment through research, education and grassroots organizing.
(Headquarters in Amsterdam, Netherlands.)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), c/o World
Meteorological Organization, 7 bis Avenue de la Paix, C.P. 2300,
CH-1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland; 41-22-730-8208; www.ipcc.ch. This U.N.
agency comprising some 2,500 scientists worldwide, assesses published,
peer-reviewed scientific technical literature on climate change.
Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 550,
Arlington, Va. 22201; (703) 516-4146; www.pewclimate.org. This nonprofit
organization provides information on climate change and seeks innovative
ways to combat the problem.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20460; (202) 260-2090; www.epa.gov/globalwarming. The EPA
provides a wealth of information on the science related to global warming, as well as policies aimed at curbing it.
Worldwatch Institute, 1776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.
20036; (202) 452-1999; www.worldwatch.org. A research organization that
focuses on an interdisciplinary approach to solving global environmental
problems. Its interests include energy conservation, renewable resources,
solar power and energy use in developing countries.
World Wildlife Fund, 1250 24th St., N.W., Suite 400; Washington, D.C.
20037; www.wwf.org. Conducts scientific research and analyzes policy on
environmental and conservation issues, including pollution reduction,
forestry and wetlands management and sustainable development.
17
See Peter G. Sparber and Peter E.
O’Rourke, “Understanding the Kyoto Protocol,” National Legal Center for the Public
Interest, April 1998.
18
See “German Environment Minister
Blames USA for Failure of Climate Talks,”
quoted by the German news agency DDP,
Nov. 25, 2000.
19
“20 Simple Steps to Reduce Global Warming,” www.environmentaldefense.org.
20
See Riley E. Dunlap, “The Environmental
Movement at 30,” The Polling Report, April
24, 2000, pp. 6-7.
21
For background, see Mary H. Cooper,
“The Economics of Recycling,” The CQ
Researcher, March 27, 1998, pp. 265-288.
Bibliography
Selected Sources Used
Articles
Reports and studies
Cooper, Richard N., “Toward a Real Global Warming
Treaty,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 1998, pp. 66-79.
According to this Harvard economist, the 1997 Kyoto
Protocol is doomed to fail because it focuses on targets for
reducing greenhouse-gas emissions that many countries
cannot or will not meet. A better approach, he writes, would
focus on actions, such as national taxes on greenhouse-gas
emissions, which would have the same effect.
Baumert, Kevin A., and Elena Petkova, “How Will the
Clean Development Mechanism Ensure Transparency,
Public Engagement, and Accountability?” World Resources Institute, November 2000.
The Clean Development Mechanism, created by the
Kyoto Protocol, would promote investment in projects
that both reduce carbon emissions and foster sustainable
development in developing countries. This study examines ways to ensure its success.
“Emission Impossible,” Foreign Policy, NovemberDecember 2000, pp. 30-31.
A series of charts and graphs illustrates trends in global
temperatures, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and costs of efforts to
meet the emission-reduction targets set by the Kyoto
Protocol.
Hansen, James, et al., “Global Warming in the 21st
Century: An Alternative Scenario,” Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, Aug. 29, 2000, pp.
9875-9880.
The NASA climate scientist who launched the domestic
debate over global warming in 1988 writes that common
air pollutants, such as soot and ground-level ozone, may
contribute more to rising temperatures than carbon
dioxide. Because efforts are already under way to curb
these pollutants, it may be easier to curb global warming
than was previously thought.
Hinrichsen, Don, “The Oceans Are Coming Ashore,”
Worldwatch, November-December 2000, pp. 26-35.
Climate change is expected to raise sea levels, threatening the survival of many coastal regions, while several
Pacific island nations may disappear entirely.
Sarewitz, Daniel, and Roger Pielke Jr., “Breaking the
Global-Warming Gridlock,” The Atlantic Monthly, July
2000.
This exhaustive review of the failings of climate models
used to demonstrate the threat of global warming concludes that policy-makers should place greater emphasis
on adapting to potentially changing climate conditions
than on reducing carbon emissions.
Singer, S. Fred, “Cool Planet, Hot Politics,” American
Outlook, summer 2000, pp. 38-40.
An outspoken critic of the scientific methods used to
demonstrate the threat of global warming writes that the
issue has been tainted by politics, with liberals supporting measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and
conservatives opposing such policies.
CQ on the Web: www.cq.com
Malcolm, Jay R., and Adam Markham, “Global Warming and Terrestrial Biodiversity Decline,” World
Wildlife Fund, August 2000.
In order to survive expected rates of global warming,
plant and animal species will have to migrate rapidly to
cooler regions. More than a third of existing habitat in 11
U.S. states may face significant climate changes.
National Assessment Synthesis Team, “Climate Change
Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change,” U.S.
Global Change Research Program, 2000.
This study, mandated by the 1990 Global Change Research
Act, concludes that certain ecosystems, notably some Rocky
Mountain alpine meadows and barrier islands, are likely to
disappear entirely with rising temperatures.
Sparber, Peter G., and Peter E. O’Rourke, “Understanding the Kyoto Protocol: A Comprehensive Citizen’s Guide
to the Scientific and Political Issues Surrounding the
New United Nations Treaty and Global Warming,” National Legal Center for Public Interest, April 1998.
The authors present background on the scientific evidence of global warming, a discussion of the political
process leading up to the Kyoto Protocol and a detailed
description of its terms.
WEFA, Inc., “Global Warming: The High Cost of the
Kyoto Protocol: National and State Impacts,” 1998.
Rising energy prices, unemployment and falling revenues resulting from efforts to meet U.S. emissionreduction targets under Kyoto will hit especially hard in
energy-producing states such as Louisiana and Alaska.
Weyant, John P., “An Introduction to the Economics
of Climate Change Policy,” Pew Center on Global
Climate Change, July 2000.
This study presents an overview of the economic impact
of policies that aim to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions
and compares the merits of various studies that come to
strikingly different conclusions about the potential costs
of these efforts.
Jan. 26, 2001
61
The Next Step
GLOBAL WARMING TREATY
Carbon Sinks
“Warming and the Woods,” The Washington Post,
Aug. 7, 2000, p. A20.
As forest fires rage in the West, a link between forests and
global cooling may not be immediately apparent. But limiting the emission of carbon dioxide into the air from fuelburning sources such as power plants and automobiles isn’t
the only way to control global warming; trees and crops can
have an effect by pulling carbon dioxide out of the air.
Ritter, Malcolm, “Promising Remedy for Global Warming: Bury That Greenhouse Gas Climate: There is
growing interest in carbon sequestration, or disposing of already-existing carbon dioxide: Piping it deep
underground is one of several possibilities,” Los
Angeles Times, May 7, 2000, p. 4.
You’ve heard plenty about how a buildup of carbon
dioxide in the air is promoting global warming, and how
industry might be told to cut back its emissions. But have
you heard about stuffing the gas in the ocean? How about
piping it into oil fields, coal seams or deep deposits of
briny water? That’s called carbon sequestration: disposing of carbon dioxide after it’s produced, rather than
trying to hold down the production in the first place.
Smith, Vicki, “Scientists Exploring Novel Ways to Get
Carbon Dioxide Under Control; Environment: Researchers hope to find methods of sucking carbon dioxide out
of the atmosphere, then locking it up underground. It
might even be used to replenish exhausted soils,” Los
Angeles Times, Oct. 22, 2000, p. A23.
Researchers at the National Energy Technology Laboratory use big words to explain their work, like “terrestrial
carbon sequestration” and “gigaton.” Perhaps that’s because cleaning up the Earth’s air is a big job. Scientists
here are studying ways to suck carbon dioxide out of the
atmosphere and lock it up so it can no longer contribute
to global warming.
Warrick, Joby, “Cultivating Farms to Soak Up a Greenhouse Gas,” The Washington Post, Nov. 23, 1998, p. A3.
The Rodale Institute experimental farm boasts an eightacre plot of super-soil that not only grows the finest corn
and soybeans but also sucks pollution out of the air like
a giant siphon. In a reverse of the “greenhouse effect,” it
drinks in carbon dioxide from cars and factories and
stores it below the surface as carbon, the building
material for future plants.
Emissions Trading
Drozdiak, William, “Global Warming Treaty Dispute
Heats Up: U.S. to Press for Pollution Trading Credits
at Hague Meeting, Over European Objections,” The
Washington Post, Nov. 12, 2000, p. A26.
62
CQ Researcher
The United States, backed by 14 Latin American countries, wants to encourage the trading of “pollution credits” among countries to meet the reduced emission levels.
U.S. officials say the emissions-trading proposal has
proved highly successful in getting rich and poor countries to cooperate in fighting pollution problems such as
acid rain, which often damages forests in neighboring
countries.
Ellison, Katherine, “California and the West: Trust
Seeks to Harvest ‘Carbon Credits’ From Forests: In
some places, firms pay to preserve trees’ ability to
absorb the substance as a way of offsetting pollution
created elsewhere. Group wants to bring the idea to
California,” Los Angeles Times, Oct. 15, 2000, p. 32.
Steve Snyder has a problem that begins with 80 acres of
ancient, towering redwoods. Along with his nine siblings
and cousins, he’s due within two years to inherit the
magnificent trees, plus 700 more acres. But three of
Snyder’s kin want to sell to loggers or developers. Snyder
feared that he would have to give up some of the
redwoods to buy out his relatives. But last spring,
environmentalists offered him intriguing alternatives—
including a scheme in which his family might be paid for
just letting the redwoods breathe: carbon dioxide in and
oxygen out.
Martin, Glen, “Energy Firm’s Landmark ‘Ecotrade’;
Forests Protected to Offset Warming,” San Francisco
Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2000, p. A1.
A Texas energy company will pay to conserve forests in
California as a way to offset its production of heattrapping gases that contribute to global warming. Similar
transactions, in which a polluter buys the right to pollute,
have long been used successfully to reduce sulfur emissions from Midwest power plants that contribute to acid
rain and other pollutants.
Weiss, Rick, “Biotech Research Branches Out; GeneAltered Trees Raise Thickets of Promise, Concern,”
The Washington Post, Aug. 3, 2000, p. A1.
In an orchard in western Canada, genetically enhanced
fruit trees kill insects on contact without pesticide sprays.
Soon they will bear apples whose crispy white flesh won’t
turn brown even hours after being cut. In Israel, poplar
trees have been made to grow so fast that they could
eliminate the need to log old-growth forests, while gobbling enough carbon dioxide to help slow global warming.
Global Warming
DiMento, Joseph F.C., “Global Warming: Keep the
Foundation,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 21, 2000, p. 9.
Do we scratch the flawed Kyoto agreement on global
warming, or do we build on it? As delegates and observers
argue about what needs to be done about global warming,
there is a sense that the problem is now more serious than
it was when the international agreement on climate change
was patched together in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997.
mate, and the Earth’s surface is likely to warm at least 2
degrees and as much as 9 degrees Fahrenheit by the end
of the 21st century.
Hall, Carl T., “Spring Scorches the Record Books: It
was the Hottest in U.S. History: Study Rekindles Global Warming Debate,” San Francisco Chronicle, June
17, 2000. p. A1.
Spring 2000 has been the warmest on record in the United
States, government climate trackers reported yesterday.
Adding one more bit of fuel to the debate over global
warming, the National Climatic Data Center reported the
national average temperature from March to May was a
balmy 55.5 degrees — 3.3 degrees above the norm for the
past 105 years and beating the record of 55.1 set in 1910.
Suplee, Curt, “Drastic Climate Changes Forecast Global Warming Likely to Cause Droughts, Coastal Erosion in U.S., Report Says,” The Washington Post, June
12, 2000, p. A3.
Global warming in the 21st century will likely cause
drastic changes in the climate of the United States,
including potentially severe droughts, increased risk of
flood, mass migrations of species, substantial shifts in
agriculture and widespread erosion of coastal zones, a
new federal report says.
Kyoto Protocol
Hebert, Josef, “Global Warming Theory Affirmed; Scientific Panel Increases Projections of Rising Temperatures,” The Washington Post, Oct. 26, 2000, p. A18.
New evidence shows man-made pollution has “contributed substantially” to global warming and that the Earth
is likely to get hotter than previously predicted, a United
Nations-sponsored panel of hundreds of scientists has
found. The conclusions by the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change are expected to widely influence
climate debate over the next decade.
Hotz, Robert Lee, “Scientists Increase Estimate of Global Warming ‘s Severity,” Los Angeles Times, Oct. 26,
2000, p. 1.
Global warming may boost world temperatures by up to
11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the 21st century, a
figure substantially higher than previous estimates, according to a confidential draft report prepared by an
influential group of climate scientists sponsored by the
United Nations.
Suplee, Curt, “Sun Studies May Shed Light on Global
Warming,” The Washington Post, Oct. 9, 2000, p. A13.
Just as world leaders are preparing to try to come to
grips with global warming, a small but persistent group
of scientists has revived an unsettling thought: What if
much, or even most, of the warming seen so far—about
1.2 degrees Fahrenheit since the late 19th century—was
not the result of civilization’s cumulative spew of “greenhouse gases”?
What if, instead, it was caused by electromagnetic
changes in the sun, a thermonuclear behemoth 93 million
miles beyond human control?
Suplee, Curt, “A Global Warming Affirmation Report
Says Trend Is Man-Made and Will Continue Through
Century,” The Washington Post, April 18, 2000, p. A2.
According to the new preliminary analysis by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, human
beings have “discernibly” influenced the planet’s cli-
CQ on the Web: www.cq.com
Hale, Ellen, “U.S. blasted in talks over global warming,” USA Today, Nov. 22, 2000, p. 27A.
With just three days left to work out details of an
international treaty on global warming, negotiations
virtually ground to a halt Tuesday after Europe accused
the United States of creating self-serving loopholes to
help meet its targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Revkin, Andrew C., “Treaty Talks Fail to Find Consensus in Global Warming,” The New York Times, Nov.
26, 2000, p. 1.
High-stakes negotiations aimed at finishing a treaty to
curb global warming collapsed today after a tense allnight bargaining session foundered on last-minute disputes between European and American negotiators. The
breakdown, after two weeks of intensive talks here,
stunned many participants, environmental groups and
observers, even though they had recognized from the
start the enormous task of finding common ground on
ways to cut the greenhouse gases emitted by every
smokestack and tailpipe from Boston to Brisbane.
Revkin, Andrew C., “Effort to Cut Warming Lacks Time
And Unity,” The New York Times, Nov. 24, 2000, p. 21.
The proposed Kyoto Protocol was drafted by more than
170 countries in 1997 in Japan. If enacted, it would
commit three dozen industrialized countries to cut their
greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 to at least 5 percent
below emissions in 1990. So far, no industrialized countries have ratified the pact.
Revkin, Andrew C., “Protests Are Stepped Up at Hague
Talks on Greenhouse Gases,” The New York Times,
Nov. 23, 2000, p. 11.
Protestors confronted the meeting at which negotiators
are seeking to create environmental and economic policies
to carry out a treaty negotiated in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. The
demonstration today centered on contentions that loopholes would prevent cuts in the use of fossil fuel.
Jan. 26, 2001
63
Back Issues
GLOBAL WARMING TREATY
The CQ Researcher offers in-depth coverage of many key areas.
Back issues are $10 for subscribers, $20 for non-subscribers.
Quantity discounts available. Call (800) 638-1710 to order back issues.
Or call for a free CQ Researcher Web trial!
On-line access provides:
• Searchable archives dating back to 1991.
• Wider access through IP authentication.
CHILDREN/YOUTH
Adoption Controversies, September 1999
Rethinking Ritalin, October 1999
Child Poverty, April 2000
Fatherhood Movement, June 2000
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Policing the Police, March 2000
Drug-Policy Debate, July 2000
Community Prosecution, December 2000
EDUCATION
The Digital Divide, January 2000
Zero Tolerance, March 2000
Community Colleges, April 2000
Cheating in Schools, September 2000
HEALTH CARE AND MEDICINE
Medical Marijuana, August 1999
Drugmakers Under Siege, September 1999
Rating Doctors, May 2000
Vaccine Controversies, August 2000
Computers and Medicine, October 2000
Hunger in America, December 2000
LEGAL ISSUES
Closing In on Tobacco, November 1999
High-Impact Litigation, February 2000
Gay-Rights Update, April 2000
CQ RESEARCHER FAVORITES IN A D URABLE ,
CIRCUL ATING VOLUME
The CQ Researcher, winner of the 1999 Society of Professional
Journalists Award for Excellence, has always provided reliable
and complete background information and analysis on timely
topics. Now that value is consistently packaged in single-issue
books for research and circulation.
CQ Researcher on Teens in America explores contemporary
topics debated in schools and discussed around the family
dinner table including drug testing, parental rights, school
violence, getting into college and juvenile crime.
October 2000 8 1/2 x 11 200 pages
Hardbound ISBN1-56802-628-5 $29.95
CQ Researcher on Saving the Environment discusses the
countless topics that concern both young adults and their
parents including pesticide regulation, setting environmental
priorities, population growth and world resources, saving rain
forests and preserving open spaces.
October 2000 8 1/2 x 11 200 pages
Hardbound ISBN 1-56802-627-7 $29.95
TO PLACE AN ORDER
CALL TOLL-FREE: 800.638.1710
FAX: 800.380.3810
WEB: WWW.CQPRESS.COM
OR E-MAIL: [email protected]
64
CQ Researcher
Future Topics
The Bush Presidency
Affordable Housing
▲
POLITICS/GOVERNMENT
Utility Deregulation, January 2000
Legacy of the Vietnam War, February 2000
TRANSPORTATION
Traffic Congestion, August 1999
Airline Industry Problems, September 1999
Auto Industry’s Future, January 2000
▲
MODERN CULTURE
Islamic Fundamentalism, March 2000
Future of Computers, May 2000
Future of Books, June 2000
Future of Language, November 2000
Campaign Finance Reform, March 2000
Immigration Reform, July 2000
Missile Defense, September 2000
The Federal Reserve, September 2000
Democracy in Latin America, Nov. 2000
▲
ENVIRONMENT
Energy and the Environment, March 2000
Zoos in the 21st Century, April 2000
Mass Extinction, September 2000
Water Quality, November 2000
• PDF files for downloading and printing.
• Availability 48 hours before print version.
Redistricting