U.S. signs Kyoto global warming treaty

The U.S. signed the Kyoto global warming treaty Nov. 13, as representatives of 160 nations concluded a second round of negotiations in Buenos Aires.

Peter Burleigh, acting U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, signed the pact at the U.N. headquarters in New York City. The U.S. was the 60th nation to sign.

The Clinton administration said it would not submit the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification until further improvements are made in the protocol, including new commitments by developing countries (OGJ, Nov. 16, 1998, p. 42).

To meet its pledge under the accord, the U.S. would have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions about 7% from 1990 levels within the next 15 years.

Vice Pres. Al Gore said, "Our signing of the protocol underscores our determination to achieve a truly global solution to this global challenge."

At the Buenos Aires meeting, the parties agreed to a late 2000 deadline for resolving issues remaining from the meeting last December in Kyoto, at which industrialized nations pledged a 5.2% cut in the emissions of gases linked to purported catastrophic global warming, mostly carbon dioxide.

Also, the participating nations plan to draft rules for enforcing the Kyoto pact, including penalties for noncompliance.

Stuart Eizenstat, U.S. undersecretary of state, said, "Buenos Aires has not only sustained but advanced the momentum of Kyoto. Serious hurdles remain to make this workable and complete, but this agreement gives us a way to move forward.''

The plan calls for the U.S., European Union, Japan, and other nations to agree by 2000 on an international emissions trading system and a method for funding emissions reductions programs in developing countries.

As the talks wrapped up, developing countries continued to oppose any voluntary reductions in their existing emissions. Exceptions were Argentina and Kazakhstan, which did pledge reductions.

Reactions

Howard Ris, executive director of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said, "Signing the treaty is an important step, but reducing pollution at home is the giant leap we need to protect us from global warming."

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) an opponent of the pact, said the administration's signing of the treaty contradicts the will of the U.S. Senate, which voted 95-0 to oppose any treaty that lacked participation by developing nations.

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), another opponent, said, "The timing of this signing only encourages countries who refuse to be a part of any effort to limit emissions."

Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alas.) said, "I really believe that the treaty is dead-it just hasn't been buried yet. Rather than trying to breathe life into a dead treaty, we should shift the focus to efforts to reduce global emissions with a mix of 21st century technology, market-oriented approaches, and American ingenuity."

Jerry Taylor, director of natural resource studies at the conservative Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., said the U.S. signing was merely symbolic.

He said, "The Kyoto treaty is dead as a doornail, and the administration knows it. Signing the treaty at this point means nothing, due to the intractable bipartisan opposition in the Senate. It is nothing but symbolism, obviously an administration priority."

The Global Climate Coalition, a U.S. group that opposes the treaty, said the U.S. should not have signed, because developing nations still are not cooperating.

Connie Holmes, GCC chairman, said, "American families should know that these meetings are ending with major developing nations still refusing to bring their bats, balls, and gloves to the Kyoto playing field.

"We commend Argentina and Kazakhstan for their pledges to make voluntary reductions in their greenhouse emissions, but until countries like China and India get into the game, the global climate treaty will be neither fair nor global."

Copyright 1998 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.