No Change On Climate Change

Bayreuth, Germany Before his visit to Europe, President Bush told a press conference: “The Kyoto Protocol has been a problem in the past.” The Europeans “thought the treaty made sense. I didn’t, and neither did the U.S. Senate.”

Yet, when Mr. Bush visited with European leaders, he also spoke of an opportunity “to work together to talk about new technologies that will help us both achieve a common objective, which is a better environment for generations to come.” He did not say why the Protocol did not make sense or what “new technologies” will somehow create “a better environment.”

Ironically, the 1997 Kyoto conference on climate change had been initiated by the United States. Vice President Al Gore had proposed to deal with global warming by rolling back carbon dioxide and sulphur emissions. Polluting industries and countries would be asked to switch to fuels or equipment that reduce emissions, or they would have to buy permits to pollute. That is what is meant by “market-based emissions trading.”

An international agreement would establish a cap on total emissions. By gradually lowering the cap, permits for polluters would become more expensive, thus motivating them to reduce noxious emissions.

The Kyoto Protocol allows each country to assign a cap on emissions of carbon dioxide caused by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal. Countries or industries whose emissions exceed their assigned caps have to buy emission permits from countries or industries under the cap.

Initially, the members of the European Union (EU) received Mr. Gore’s idea with skepticism. The longer they thought it through, however, the more they liked it. The U.S. government reversed its position, however, apparently under pressures from the big polluting industries, particularly the coal-burning power companies.

In March 2001, the Bush administration rejected the Protocol’s requirements as being too costly for America’s economy. In the face of worldwide criticism of the U.S., as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the President in February 2002 announced what he called “The Global Climate Change Initiative.” Relying on “voluntary initiatives and technology and research,” the measure was to reduce greenhouse gas intensity in the U.S. by 18 percent in 10 years.

Since the President asked only for voluntary action by the polluters, the signers of the Kyoto Protocol, particularly the Europeans, refused to take his “Initiative” serious. Several members of Congress also considered the President’s action insufficient, notably Senators McCain (R-AR) and Lieberman (D-NJ) whose “Climate Stewardship Act of 2003” would have imposed the “cap and trade” system.

Among America’s big polluters, ExxonMobil challenged the claim that human behavior could affect climate. Others, such as British Petroleum, Dupont, and Shell, voluntarily committed themselves to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Like their American counterparts, some European businesses also claim that the Kyoto Protocol’s requirements would harm their competitiveness.

In the preparations for President Bush’s meetings with European leaders, the State Department’s spokesman declared: “While the United States and countries with binding emissions restrictions under the Kyoto Protocol are taking different paths, our destination is the same, and compatible with other efforts.”That was on February 15, the day before the Kyoto Protocol went into force after Russia had ratified it.

The Protocol now binds industrialized nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by an average of 5.2% below their 1990 levels over the next decade. In Europe more than 12,000 large carbon dioxide emitters have been issued credits. Those successful emission reducers, however, represent only 40 percent of Europe’s emissions total.

In the meantime, the 141 signers of the Protocol have repeatedly appealed to the non-signers, particularly the U.S. and Australia, to join them. They argue that without America’s participation in mandatory pollution control the Kyoto scheme
cannot be effective worldwide.

The President’s recent talks in Europe did not essentially narrow the differences between his position on the Kyoto Protocol and the arguments of its signers. If he wants more European assistance on the pacification and rebuilding of Iraq, he would be well advised to reconsider his opposition to mandatory emission controls.

Wolf D. Fuhrig	Home	03-13-05
No Change On Climate Change
*Bayreuth, Germany* Before his visit to Europe, President Bush told a press conference: “The Kyoto Protocol has been a problem in the past.” The Europeans “thought the treaty made sense. I didn’t, and neither did the U.S. Senate.” Yet, when Mr. Bush visited with European leaders, he also spoke of an opportunity “to work together to talk about new technologies that will help us both achieve a common objective, which is a better environment for generations to come.” He did not say why the Protocol did not make sense or what “new technologies” will somehow create “a better environment.” Ironically, the 1997 Kyoto conference on climate change had been initiated by the United States. Vice President Al Gore had proposed to deal with global warming by rolling back carbon dioxide and sulphur emissions. Polluting industries and countries would be asked to switch to fuels or equipment that reduce emissions, or they would have to buy permits to pollute. That is what is meant by “market-based emissions trading.” An international agreement would establish a cap on total emissions. By gradually lowering the cap, permits for polluters would become more expensive, thus motivating them to reduce noxious emissions. The Kyoto Protocol allows each country to assign a cap on emissions of carbon dioxide caused by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal. Countries or industries whose emissions exceed their assigned caps have to buy emission permits from countries or industries under the cap. Initially, the members of the European Union (EU) received Mr. Gore’s idea with skepticism. The longer they thought it through, however, the more they liked it. The U.S. government reversed its position, however, apparently under pressures from the big polluting industries, particularly the coal-burning power companies. In March 2001, the Bush administration rejected the Protocol’s requirements as being too costly for America’s economy. In the face of worldwide criticism of the U.S., as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the President in February 2002 announced what he called “The Global Climate Change Initiative.” Relying on “voluntary initiatives and technology and research,” the measure was to reduce greenhouse gas intensity in the U.S. by 18 percent in 10 years. Since the President asked only for voluntary action by the polluters, the signers of the Kyoto Protocol, particularly the Europeans, refused to take his “Initiative” serious. Several members of Congress also considered the President’s action insufficient, notably Senators McCain (R-AR) and Lieberman (D-NJ) whose “Climate Stewardship Act of 2003” would have imposed the “cap and trade” system. Among America’s big polluters, ExxonMobil challenged the claim that human behavior could affect climate. Others, such as British Petroleum, Dupont, and Shell, voluntarily committed themselves to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Like their American counterparts, some European businesses also claim that the Kyoto Protocol’s requirements would harm their competitiveness. In the preparations for President Bush’s meetings with European leaders, the State Department’s spokesman declared: “While the United States and countries with binding emissions restrictions under the Kyoto Protocol are taking different paths, our destination is the same, and compatible with other efforts.”That was on February 15, the day before the Kyoto Protocol went into force after Russia had ratified it. The Protocol now binds industrialized nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by an average of 5.2% below their 1990 levels over the next decade. In Europe more than 12,000 large carbon dioxide emitters have been issued credits. Those successful emission reducers, however, represent only 40 percent of Europe’s emissions total. In the meantime, the 141 signers of the Protocol have repeatedly appealed to the non-signers, particularly the U.S. and Australia, to join them. They argue that without America’s participation in mandatory pollution control the Kyoto scheme cannot be effective worldwide. The President’s recent talks in Europe did not essentially narrow the differences between his position on the Kyoto Protocol and the arguments of its signers. If he wants more European assistance on the pacification and rebuilding of Iraq, he would be well advised to reconsider his opposition to mandatory emission controls.

Wolf D. Fuhrig

Home

03-13-05

No Change On Climate Change