First Kyoto, now reality

Environmentalism yelled "Boo!" and the world jumped.

Representatives of more than 160 governments gathered in Kyoto, Japan, to negotiate a response to the possibility that human activity dangerously heats the climate. And in the heady excitement of environmental urgency and diplomatic intrigue, they got their deal. The group produced a result (see related story, p. 17).

Then group members went home, where reality lay in patient wait.

The steamroller

The Kyoto meeting capped what history should remember as the year of the environmentalist steamroller. Next comes the year of the economic brick wall.

A proper debate over the science of climate change never occurred. A United Nations study of the subject was hailed as conclusive when, in fact, a number of participating scientists repudiated the summary report that made findings sound certain enough to support policy. Their protests fell on deaf ears.

No one had answers to questions about the assertion crucial to the call for immediate action: that a build-up of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere will produce catastrophic warming. Anxious supporters of global-warming remedies scoffed at scientists who pointed out weaknesses in the assumption, not alone among which is that most of the past century's celebrated warming predates most of the CO2 build-up.

But why trifle with scientific intricacy when diplomacy is afoot? In a rush to be historic, it's easy to forget about being right.

The year produced memorable images: the glib official who proclaimed Europeans to be ahead of Americans on global warming by sole virtue of their eagerness to mandate CO2 emission cuts; the U.S. interior secretary who called global warming doubters in his country un-American; the U.S. vice-president who swooped into Kyoto just long enough to instruct American delegates to "show increased negotiating flexibility"; and the U.K. prime minister who, on the very week of the Kyoto conference, attempted to pacify coal miners' unions by suspending applications for gas-fired power plants.

But forgive world leaders their shaky moments. They have confessed to holy certainty about the science of climate change and wish not to be bothered with questions that might impede their program. The world's hard-working people need only to trust them-they're certain, after all-and prepare to pay.

The Kyoto agreement moves the global warming issue from the realm of diplomatic high-mindedness into that of practical politics. It is the framework for questions about who pays and how much. As answers emerge, the politics will become interesting.

The agreement requires the U.S., Europe, and Japan by 2012 to cut emissions of CO2, methane, and nitrogen oxides by 6-8% from 1990 levels and of three other greenhouse gases by like amounts from 1995 levels. And it gives the exemption they had vigorously sought. It contains other details, including trading rights for emissions credits, but the crucial elements are the high costs and unequal distribution of hardship.

Who ratifies?

These are not the ingredients of ready ratification. The costs will focus attention on prospects for environmental gain, of which there are none that anyone can be certain about. Especially with developing countries exempt, an overall cut of 5% in the emission rate from industrialized countries will have negligible effect on total concentrations of greenhouse gas. Asked to make certain sacrifice for uncertain benefit, no rational political body will ratify the Kyoto agreement.

World leaders have allowed themselves to be spooked by environmentalism into a senseless agreement. They now face the scientifically impossible political task of demonstrating benefit sufficient to justify the costs they agreed to impose. That's when the steamroller hits wall. With luck, the political world will stagger away from this impending wreck less gullible than before to environmentalist panic-mongering.

Copyright 1997 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.