The Clinton administration's determination to act, unilaterally if necessary, to halt global climate change is beginning to draw more notice in Washington.
The American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) held a seminar on the issue last week, and energy committees in both houses of Congress plan oversight hearings soon.
At a United Nations climate change convention in July, the U.S. urged all nations to take tough action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from combustion of fossil fuels.
Tim Wirth, State Department Undersecretary for Global Affairs, said the U.S. would set a binding target for itself.
Tax or rationing?
The American Petroleum Institute has been warning the only way for the administration to achieve the sharp reductions in fossil fuel use that it plans is through an energy tax or fuel rationing system.
At the meeting last week, ACCF's Center for Policy Research released a study that said reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels in the near term would slow the annual growth of per capita income by 5-10% and worsen the distribution of income among U.S. households.
In the paper, Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University said the economic effects of taxing carbon emissions to achieve a 20% reduction relative to 1990 levels by 2010 are more than twice as large as those associated with taxes that stabilize emissions at 1990 levels.
"Imposing taxes designed to meet either target could 'feel' like living through the oil price shock of the 1970s and 1980s all over again," he said.
Sen. Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.) said, "It is far too early for the administration to enter into these agreements. The American people haven't been brought into the debate, and the administration has a responsibility to inform them what the economic impacts will be."
Dingell on the attack
Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) delivered a scathing attack on the administration's idealism about global warming.
He complained the U.S. agreed there is a serious problem, although the proof is still "difficult to quantify." He said the General Accounting Office has declared the evidence for global warming to be "incomplete, unreliable, and inconsistent."
Dingell said this is another instance in which "politics tramples science." He said for the U.S. to agree to reductions before carefully identifying targets is "casting our economic future on a throw of the dice."
The veteran lawmaker said the U.S. should never have agreed to make binding commitments to reduce fossil energy use without insisting that other countries do the same.
Dingell said the global warming problem, if there is one, cannot be solved by the U.S. acting alone. He said all countries are in the same boat and cannot look at each other and declare, "Your end of the boat is sinking."
Furthermore, he said if a bilateral treaty is signed, it should be ironclad. He claimed the Montreal Protocol to reduce production of chemicals that deplete the ozone layer has been a failure, with less than half the nations signing the treaty actually taking action.
Dingell conceded, "At this moment, we're getting all the proper assurances" from the Clinton administration, but "I detect a great many opportunities for mischief in the next few months."
Copyright 1996 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.
