Groups skewer Clinton's global warming plan

Patrick Crow
Energy Policies Editor

President Bill Clinton's middle-of-the-road approach to reducing worldwide greenhouse gas emissions drew little praise last week.

The plan, which did not mention higher taxes on fossil fuel use, was disclosed at a Washington, D.C., press conference last week and communicated to a global warming meeting in Bonn.

The Bonn negotiations are laying the groundwork for an international summit at Kyoto in December. That meeting will attempt to draft a treaty to reduce global emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Clinton's plan is less than environmentalists want but tougher than U.S. oil producers and manufacturers wanted.

The program

Clinton proposed that industrialized nations reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels during 2008-12 and make further, unspecified cuts by 2017. Western European nations have proposed a 15% cut below 1990 levels by 2010, and Japan wants a 5% reduction below 1980 levels by 2012.

Clinton said adoption of an international emissions trading program would "cut worldwide (greenhouse gas) pollution and keep costs low."

And finally, he said "both industrialized and developing countries must participate." He said the U.S. will not accept the treaty "unless key developing nations" are included. Otherwise, he said, "concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to climb" despite what the industrialized nations do.

White House sources said the administration would propose about $5 billion in tax breaks and targeted credits to give companies incentives to quickly reduce gas emissions.

Clinton stance

Clinton said, "Make no mistake. The problem is real. And if we do not change our course now, the consequences sooner or later will be destructive for America and the world."

Clinton said if the U.S. "harnesses our free market" to tackle the problem, it will "create a wealth of new opportunities. If we do this properly, we will not jeopardize our prosperity, we will increase it."

He said as the U.S. acts to increase competition in the electricity industry, it should do so in a way that lowers greenhouse gas emissions from that coal-burning sector.

Citing a recent breakthrough in gasoline-burning fuel cells for autos (see Newsletter), Clinton said most of the technologies the U.S. needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions "are already out there. We just have to take advantage of them."

Reactions

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) said, "President Clinton's proposal to curb global warming wisely rejects the no-action strategy advocated by fossil fuel interests but falls considerably short of the critically needed reductions of heat-trapping gas emissions." UCS said that, although the Clinton administration would freeze emissions initially, "the world's leading scientists have called for substantial, near-term reductions in emissions below 1990 levels."

Howard Ris, UCS executive director, said, "This is too little, too late. Unless we make reductions sooner, we will pass the burden of global warming on to future generations. The science demands a more aggressive approach to the problem."

The Global Climate Coalition (GCC), an industry group, said Clinton's plan would require energy taxes or rationing and damage the U.S. economy while producing no lasting environmental benefit.

GCC said, "American families can expect to pay at least $2,000/year by 2010 if these efforts to reduce energy are implemented." It said the administration's trading and tax credit plans "both must ultimately be paid for by American consumers and taxpayers."

Producers' views

George Yates, chairman-elect of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, said U.S. oil and gas producers are concerned that "President Clinton is offering high-cost, economically risky solutions to a problem that has not been proven to exist."

Yates, president of Harvey Yates Co., Roswell, N.M., said, "In offering these so-called 'solutions,' the president has catered to international pressure and emotion-based politics, and he has ignored science."

He said that it has not been demonstrated that fossil fuel use is responsible for global warming, "and it is the president's responsibility to study this issue exhaustively before sacrificing thousands of jobs and spending billions in taxpayer dollars."

Hill reactions

The American Petroleum Institute said the administration's plan "is little more than a Trojan horse hiding a stealth tax and a rationing scheme."

It said the Clinton plan would force average Americans to use less energy while increasing the costs of basic commodities such as gasoline, natural gas, electricity, and heating oil.

"Stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels could mean cutting energy use by as much as 25-30% by 2010-a reduction that is virtually impossible to achieve without enormous economic pain.

The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America said Clinton's policy could be good for the environment and the U.S. economy.

"Market-based incentives, such as those called for in the president's plan, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and bolster the use of natural gas in the U.S. and throughout the world."

Copyright 1997 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.