Study shows flaws in global warming treaty

The Heritage Foundation has urged the U.S. Senate to reject the global warming treaty that the Clinton administration helped negotiate last month in Kyoto, Japan (see report beginning on p. 33).

A Heritage paper said the Senate set specific conditions for its ratification of any climate change treaty, but the administration ignored them and "agreed to a treaty that would sacrifice the U.S. economy in order to pacify members of special-interest environmental groups with every incentive to exaggerate the possibility of global warming."

The Washington, D.C., think tank said the administration plans to delay submitting the treaty to the Senate "in the hope that time and political necessity will dull the opposition," but Congress should insist on getting the treaty as soon as Clinton signs it.

Heritage said scientists remain divided on the nature and theory of catastrophic global warming and have indicated that they will need another decade to determine whether human activity significantly affects global temperatures.

'Myths' hit

Heritage predicted, "Over the next several months the administration can be expected to exploit a number of myths surrounding the treaty in a desperate attempt to convince the American people to buy into the agreement."

It said the administration will argue the U.S. has assumed its proper leadership role in reducing the level of greenhouse gas emissions.

Instead, Heritage said, the administration was unable to advance the U.S. agenda in Kyoto and acquiesced to an agreement that will put its citizens at an economic disadvantage.

"The U.S. negotiators agreed to considerably tighter mandatory reduction targets than they had sought when the talks began-from reductions during 2008-12 to 1990 levels to reductions that are 7% below those 1990 levels.

"By contrast, other nations either stood firm or weakened their commitments. For example, the European Union, one of the loudest critics of the U.S. position, accepted lesser reductions-from 15% below 1990 levels by 2010 to 8% below those levels during 2008-12.

"Without the treaty, according to U.S Department of Energy predictions, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 will be 34% above 1990 levels. Thus, the U.S. actually committed to reducing its emissions by a third (the 7% reduction from 1990 levels outlined in the treaty plus the 34% increase in emissions that supposedly would have occurred 'normally' without the treaty)."

Heritage said it also was a myth that the treaty will reduce the overall level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"The treaty does not require any emissions reductions by the developing countries, despite the fact that they will be the major source of greenhouse gas emissions by 2016, generating 75% of all greenhouse gases by 2100, including 66% of carbon dioxide."

Heritage said the administration will not be able to bring developing countries into the agreement later.

"The developing countries have refused to participate in any treaty requiring them to constrain their emissions, and they will be even less interested in entering into an agreement a year or more down the road from Kyoto. They understand that if they are held to mandatory targets now, their economic growth will be curtailed sharply."

Other issues

Heritage said it was a myth that the treaty would be a cost-effective way to help developing countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

It said the treaty will obligate industrialized countries both to pay for any costs incurred by developing countries in pursuit of treaty standards and to transfer any technology and technical expertise-effectively free of charge-to the developing countries.

"Obviously, for developing countries, this is a sweet deal. They are under no obligation to abide by the treaty, because the industrialized countries will absorb the economic hardship associated with reducing emissions. If the developing countries do decide to reduce their emissions, the industrialized countries will provide money and technology for any costs they incur."

It noted developing countries will have a voice in dictating what enforcement actions must be taken against the U.S. for any failures to reduce emissions or to provide resources and technology as outlined in the treaty, even though they are under no obligation to reduce their own emissions.

Heritage also disputed the claim that the phase-in during 2008-12 will give the U.S. adequate time to adopt technology to meet its targets without any sacrifice or economic pain. It argued the U.S. would be forced to take action immediately to reduce its emissions, since the protocol stipulates that each participating nation "shall, by 2005, have made demonstrable progress in achieving its commitments."