* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Global Warming Treaty
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit documents wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Climate-friendly gardening wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Instrumental temperature record wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in New Zealand wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Physical impacts of climate change wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Climate Change conference wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Global warming hiatus wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Canada wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
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