Watching Government: Global warming impasse

A recent United Nations Earth Summit ended with delegates stalemated on what to do about the perceived global warming issue, much to the relief of industry groups. They were pleased President Bill Clinton continued to resist pressure from European nations, which have criticized the U.S. for not accepting a proposal for a 15% worldwide reduction by 2010 in carbon dioxide emissions. Since a 1992 conference in Rio de Janeiro, the U.S. has been part of an international effort to draft a treaty

July 7, 1997

3 min read

Patrick Crow
[email protected]

A recent United Nations Earth Summit ended with delegates stalemated on what to do about the perceived global warming issue, much to the relief of industry groups.

They were pleased President Bill Clinton continued to resist pressure from European nations, which have criticized the U.S. for not accepting a proposal for a 15% worldwide reduction by 2010 in carbon dioxide emissions.

Since a 1992 conference in Rio de Janeiro, the U.S. has been part of an international effort to draft a treaty limiting greenhouse gas emissions, which is due for completion at a December meeting in Kyoto, Japan.

Clinton admitted the U.S., with just 4% of the world's population, produces 20% of its greenhouse gases from human activity. He promised the U.S. would commit to "realistic and binding limits" before the Kyoto conference.

But he indicated tougher controls lack public support. He said the White House would sponsor a climate change conference this year "to lay the scientific facts before our people to understand that we must act and to lay the economic facts there so that they will understand the benefits and the costs.

"With the best ideas and strategies, new technologies, and increased productivity and energy efficiency, we can turn the challenge to our advantage," he said.

Reactions

The Union of Concerned Scientists said, "President Clinton must reject the coal and oil industry's scare tactics and commit the U.S. to help lead the fight against global warming. Meaningful action on this issue could well be the president's greatest legacy to future generations."

But the Global Climate Coalition, representing business trade associations and companies, said the U.S. should not rush to judgment.

Gail McDonald, GCC president, said, "I'm encouraged the administration seems to be considering a fuller public decision on the science, and on the economic analyses, so that the U.S. is not buying a pig in a poke here."

GCC said a pending Energy Department study will show the U.N. proposals would harm six major U.S. industry sectors.

Connie Holmes, GCC chairman, said, "The real bottom line is that climate change is no longer a science issue. It is a political issue. And it is an international economic issue."

She maintained, "There is nothing magic about having to complete a treaty by December 1997. That date doesn't have to be met."

Science questioned

GCC warned, "There are many vested interests pushing very hard for an agreement that would have dire consequences for our economy. Any plan that places legally binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions is almost certain to require increases in energy taxes or energy rationing."

Meanwhile, Fred Singer, of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, Fairfax, Va., reported that as global temperature has increased during the last century, the sea level has fallen instead of rising.

He said the sea level trend dropped during 1925-40, indicating that glacial melting was more than offset by increased ocean evaporation and precipitation (snow) at the poles.

He also said the earth's climate record offers no clue as to what atmospheric level of carbon dioxide would be "dangerous," which the Kyoto conference would attempt to prevent.