Warming issues
Patrick CrowThe Clinton administration again has pledged not to sign the Kyoto climate change treaty until it can persuade developing nations to reduce their "greenhouse gas" emissions.
Washington, D.C.
[email protected]
Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstat, the chief U.S. negotiator at the December 1997 talks in Kyoto, told the Senate foreign relations committee the administration has not decided when to endorse the pact and send it to the Senate for ratification. The treaty will be open for signature for 1 year beginning Mar. 16.
Eizenstat noted the industrialized world now emits more than 70% of greenhouse gases, but by 2015 China will be the largest emitter, and by 2025 the developing world will emit more gases than the developed.
He admitted it will be tough to persuade developing countries to cut their emissions.
The U.S. will ask the Group of Eight industrialized nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Asian Partnership for Economic Cooperation, and similar groups to lobby developing countries.
Eizenstat said the U.S. also would ask the World Bank and regional development banks not to finance energy projects that contribute to global warming.
Senator wary
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a staunch foe of the treaty, told Eizenstat that, until the administration submits the treaty to the Senate for ratification, it should not implement any future U.S. obligations under the protocol.In its fiscal 1999 budget proposal, the administration asked Congress for $3.6 billion in tax credits for energy efficiency projects and renewable energy projects and $2.7 billion in greenhouse gas research spending over 5 years.
Eizenstat explained those initiatives don't represent concrete steps toward implementing the Kyoto treaty but merely are good energy policy.
Hagel promised that Congress would continue holding oversight hearings "to ensure that the administration is not attempting to implement this treaty prior to ratification."
Hagel urged the administration to consider not signing the treaty at all. "It makes no sense to sign a flawed treaty, thereby giving away our leverage and negotiating strength."
Economic analyses
A bitter debate over the treaty's costs is likely this year.David Montgomery, vice president of Charles River Associates, recently said the Kyoto pact would cost the U.S. about 2% of its gross domestic product by 2010, or about $175 billion/year.
But Joseph Romm, deputy energy secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, said that does not account for the international emissions-trading mechanism that the protocol allows.
Eizenstat said the Clinton administration's economic analysis, which will be issued soon, will show only "reasonable" costs offset by many benefits.
For instance, he said, the treaty would create high-technology jobs in the U.S. because overseas markets would need energy-efficient technologies.
Eizenstat also argued that delaying U.S. emission reductions would only make the action more necessary, and even more expensive, in the future.
Copyright 1998 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.