On March 28, 2001, President George W. Bush
announced that the United States would not implement the Kyoto
Protocol on global warming. Given the current
energy crisis as well as "the incomplete state of scientific
knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change
and the lack of commercially available technologies for removing
and storing carbon dioxide," the President said he could not sign
an agreement that would "harm our economy and hurt our workers." He also objected to
the fact that the Protocol--which has been ratified by only one of
the countries necessary before it could go into effect--still
"exempts 80 percent of the world...from compliance." President Bush
supports a policy approach to the issue of global climate change
that is based on sound science, and he has offered to work with
America's allies and through international processes to "develop
technologies, market-based incentives, and other innovative
approaches" that would address the factors involved more
effectively.
The
President's principled announcement set off a firestorm of
criticism from environmental activists at home and from other
countries, including the European Union (EU). Supporters of the
Protocol claimed that unless the United States reduces its carbon
dioxide emissions under the agreement, the Earth's temperature will
rise with catastrophic results, such as massive floods, coastal
erosion, and water shortages. Their criticisms make it appear that
the President's decision is a drastic reversal of U.S. policy, but
this is not the case. Ever since the Clinton Administration agreed
to the Protocol in December 1997, Congress has
expressed its disapproval, and little progress has been made in
hammering out guidelines for domestic implementation.
Evidence of the considerable lack of
consensus, both in the United States and abroad, concerning the
Protocol's underlying principles and its policies includes the
following:
-
Strong
Congressional Reservations. In July 1997, the Senate
unanimously passed a resolution (S. Res. 98) stating that it would
not ratify any global climate treaty that would seriously harm the
U.S. economy or that failed to require developing countries to
reduce their emissions within the same time frame as the developed
countries. Despite this Senate
opposition, the Clinton Administration agreed to the Protocol five
months later and then signed it on November 12, 1998. Recognizing the
lack of support for the Protocol on Capitol Hill, however,
President Clinton never submitted it to the Senate for
ratification--a step necessary for it to take effect.
-
Presidential
Approval of Appropriations Bills to Prohibit Funding for the
Protocol. President Clinton approved and signed into law
appropriations bills for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 that
included language prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency
from using its funds to "issue rules, regulations, decrees, or
orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for
implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol" until the Protocol is
ratified by the Senate and entered into force under the terms of
the treaty.
-
Little
Ratification Activity Among Developed Countries. Most nations
of the EU as well as other parties to the agreement have not
ratified the Protocol. According to the United Nations, of the 84
countries that have signed the Protocol, only 32 developing
countries--which will not be subject to its emissions targets--and
Romania have ratified it. No major
industrialized Annex I country has done so. Romania, which is
an Annex I country, ratified the Protocol on March 19, 2001.
However, as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) reports, Romania represents only 1.2 percent of the
combined emissions (55 percent) required to bring the Protocol into
force.
President Bush is right to walk away from
the Kyoto Protocol. It is a flawed agreement for addressing the
issue of global temperature changes and their impact on the
environment. Considerable uncertainty remains about the science of
climate change and mankind's contribution to it. As John Christy, a
professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville, recently stated, "climate models are really in the
infancy of being able to predict the future." Therefore, any
agreement based on these models is based on speculation, not
fact.
Furthermore, any agreement that allows the
developing countries to continue emitting greenhouse gases would in
effect negate the efforts of those countries that are trying to
reduce them. It would drastically increase the cost of gasoline,
electricity, and fuel oil for Americans and cause significant harm
to the U.S. economy.
Americans would be better served if the
Administration adopted a "no regrets" plan of action to reduce
greenhouse gases domestically over the short term and augmented
efforts to improve research and climate modeling capabilities so
that policymakers could better understand how climate change is
affecting the environment. The global economy would be better
served if the United States continued to lead opposition to the
Protocol's command-and-control regulatory approach and looked for
alternative ways to encourage nations to reduce emissions
voluntarily. And the U.S. economy would be better served by low tax
and deregulatory policies and a competitive domestic energy market
that fosters long-term improvements in energy efficiency and new
technologies.
FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS IN THE
TREATY
Fundamental
Flaws
of the Kyoto Protocol
-
Faulty Science. Large
uncertainties remain in predicting future climate changes, their
impact, and their causes. Projections are based on scenarios that
predict population change, fuel use, technology development,
international trade, and rate of development. The Protocol does not
distinguish between human and non-human sources for greenhouse
gases.
-
Unrealistic Targets. The
Protocol would require industrial countries to reduce their
emissions to below their 1990 levels. Many countries will not be
able to meet their emissions targets, and even if they did, this
would not reduce worldwide emissions since studies show that
emissions by the developing countries will exceed those of the
industrial countries by 2020.
-
Misdirected Objectives. Too
much emphasis is placed on carbon dioxide and not enough on other
greenhouse gases and heat-trapping substances.
-
Exempts Developing Countries.
The Protocol excludes developing countries from binding emissions
reductions. Included among its category of developing countries are
China, Russia, India, and Brazil.
- Severe Economic Consequences. The Protocol will
drastically raise the price of energy, will cause economic hardship
to American workers and families, and will place the United States
at a competitive disadvantage.
|
The Kyoto Protocol sets targets for industrial countries--such as
the United States, Japan, Canada, and members of the European
Union--to reduce their overall emissions of greenhouse gases by at
least 5 percent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. The Clinton Administration
committed the United States to a 7 percent reduction from 1990
levels and agreed that developing countries--including China,
India, and Brazil--should be excluded from these targets.
The
Protocol is unachievable, unfair, and economically harmful to the
United States. Even if it came into force, it would achieve little
environmental benefit and would fail to achieve its goal of
reducing greenhouse gases. The following are among the Protocol's
fundamental flaws:
-
Faulty
Science. Every five years, the United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes a report on global climate
change. These Assessment Reports, which become central to the
debate over global warming, purport to lay out a consensus of what
is known, what is still uncertain, and how various actions might
cause changes in future climate conditions. The Second
Assessment Report in 1995 predicted, for example, temperature
increases by the year 2100 that would range from less than 2°F
to more than 6°F. However, it also conceded that "current data
and systems are inadequate for the complete description of climate
change."
In January 2001,
in a "Summary for Policymakers" for the Third Assessment Report, the IPCC predicted
the onslaught of coastal inundation, increasingly violent weather,
more droughts, increased spread of mosquito-borne illnesses, crop
failures, and more. It placed blame at the feet of humans for
temperatures warming at a faster rate than previously predicted.
Though the media
characterized the summary as having a higher degree of certainty
than previous assessments, independent
reviews have found it to be a flagrant misrepresentation of what is
known about the impact of future climate changes. For example, after
reviewing a draft of the summary that was leaked to the press just
before the U.S. presidential elections, the Director of the
Environmental Program at the Reason Public Policy Institute, Dr.
Kenneth Green, criticized the report for not putting its findings
in context, either with previous assessments or with the main body
of research conducted for the more scientifically rigorous Third
Assessment. Moreover, when the
official version of the summary was released, he found that the
wording had changed but the predictions were the same as in the
leaked report.
Dr. Green found
the IPCC report seriously flawed because it:
-
Presents
speculation as fact. The report makes predictions based on
simple models that (1) fail to take into account current or
historical climate phenomena, (2) are not calibrated to observed
climate phenomena, (3) fail to emulate fundamental climate
processes, and (4) project an appearance of certainty that is not
supported by the evidence in underlying technical reports or
statements regarding similar exercises made in mainstream science
journals.
-
Fails to
distinguish between non-human and human-caused factors. By lumping
together predictions based on human and non-human factors, the
report fails to provide the kind of verifiable information that
would enable policymakers to make intelligent decisions on how to
reduce human contributions to climate change and how to prepare for
changes that are due to forces outside of human control.
-
Bases its
predictions on pessimistic and unsubstantiated
assumptions--worst-case scenarios that suggest a higher range
of potential warming and rising sea levels by 2100. The possible
scenarios on which the report's predictions are based include
population changes, fuel use, technology development, international
trade, and rate of development.
As Dr. Green concludes, "the ramifications
of climate change policy are too far-reaching to be based on
distorted representations of the current state of knowledge in
either climate science or climate predictive ability." As long as biased
political forces outside scientific processes can manipulate the
data, scientists will never be able to arrive at a consensus
regarding global climate change. Until a consensus based on sound
science can be reached, it would be irresponsible for the U.S.
government to agree to mandatory emissions reductions.
-
Unrealistic Targets. Studies also
show that it is unlikely that the industrialized countries will
meet their targets under the Kyoto Protocol. For example, a review
of five recent government studies and one independent review by
WEFA, a U.S. econometrics modeling firm, finds that the
industrialized countries of North America, the Pacific region, and
Western Europe would not be able to meet their emissions targets
without imposing excessive carbon taxes or allowing the extensive
use of such "flexibility mechanisms" as emissions trading. Without these
measures, the studies conclude, the United States would have to
curb its emissions by more than 30 percent to meet its target in
2010. The EU would have
to reduce emissions over this same period from 16 percent to over
30 percent.
-
Misdirected
Objectives. A study published last year by James Hansen and his
colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies finds that
too much attention is being placed on carbon dioxide. Instead, Hansen
proposes that reductions in non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases and
other heat-trapping substances such as methane, ozone, soot, and
aerosols would be a more practical way to address climate change. Hansen notes that
emissions from these other greenhouse gases and aerosols are easier
to control than carbon dioxide. His suggestion
merits serious consideration. As noted in The Washington Post,
Hansen's study "suggests that the sensible course is to move ahead
with a strong dose of realism and flexibility." It should
remind us that
climate issues are complex, far from fully understood and open to a
variety of approaches. It should serve as a caution to
environmentalists so certain of their position that they're willing
to advocate radical solutions, no matter what the economic cost.
-
Exempts
Developing Nations. The Protocol exempts developing countries
such as China, India, and Brazil from its binding emissions
reductions. Because of
population increases, economic expansion, and increasing reliance
on commercial fuels, however, developing nations will emit more
greenhouse gases within 15 years than will the major industrialized
countries. More recent data
from the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department
of Energy predict that by 2020, total carbon dioxide emissions by
the developing countries will significantly surpass those of
industrialized countries. (See Chart 1.)
Moreover, world coal use will grow by 30 percent between 1999 and
2020, with China and India alone accounting for 90 percent of that
increase.
Since greenhouse gases are not stationary,
failing to include developing countries in the reduction goals will
negate any reductions that industrialized countries could
achieve. In fact, global
emissions would increase, as energy-intensive production would
transfer from developed to undeveloped countries where energy use
is less efficient but less costly. Exempting
developing countries from binding emission targets will create a
competitive imbalance between the industrial and developing
nations.
If the goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions collectively because of the alleged
risk of global warming, then developing countries must be subject
to the Protocol's restrictions. Exempting them makes it unlikely
that the Protocol will have any permanent effect on greenhouse gas
emissions.
Severe Economic Consequences. A
recent study notes that many climate policy experts now believe the
emissions reductions called for in the Protocol could have an
adverse effect on Americans. The study finds,
for example, that U.S. productivity following implementation of the
Protocol would fall by $100 billion to over $400 billion in 2010. An unrestricted
global emissions trading system that includes developing countries
could reduce this damage to between $100 billion and $200
billion. Even if developed
countries could buy credits from developing countries, they would
still pay dearly to attract them at a time when developing nations
are focused on economic growth.
The study also
predicts that increases in prices for gasoline would range from
about 30 percent to over 50 percent and increases in prices for
electricity from 50 percent to over 80 percent. Further, workers
would suffer reductions in wage growth of 5 percent to 10 percent a
year, while living standards would fall by 15 percent. Employment losses would be
similarly significant. According to a WEFA analysis, if all
mandated carbon emissions targets are achieved domestically, every
state in the United States will lose jobs. Total
job losses are estimated at 2.4 million. Low-
and moderate-income families would be hardest hit.
U.S.
competitiveness would be harmed as well. Developing countries would
not need to raise their energy prices or product prices as the
industrial countries would after implementing steps to meet their
targets. U.S. output of
energy-intensive products, such as automobiles, steel, paper, and
chemicals, could decline by 15 percent by 2020. Rising energy
costs would adversely affect U.S. agriculture as well, causing food
exports to decline and food imports to increase.
EUROPE'S DECEPTION
Ever since President Bush announced that the United States would
not support the Kyoto Protocol, European leaders have attacked him
relentlessly for this decision, even resorting to petty
name-calling. Their protests are hypocritical. Notwithstanding
their purported commitment to the Protocol, no EU country has
ratified the treaty. Moreover, studies suggest that emissions in
Europe will increase over the next 10 years. Specifically:
MIT's Joint Program on the Science and
Policy of Global Change predicted in February that by 2010, CO2
emissions in the EU would surpass 1990 levels by 14 percent; and
The U.S. Energy Information Administration
recently estimated that by 2010, emissions in Western Europe would
be 12 percent above 1990 levels.
Thus, the EU states will fall well short
of their Kyoto Protocol target of 8 percent below 1990 levels.
To
be sure, hurling insults at the U.S. President for his honest
approach to the problem conveniently diverts attention away from
their inability to meet their own targets. As EU Environment
Commissioner Margo Wallstrom noted at a recent press conference,
"this is not a marginal issue that can be ignored or played
down.... It has to do with international relations, with trade,
with economics." The primary
objective is to secure job growth and economic expansion, not a
reduction in emissions.
WHAT WASHINGTON SHOULD DO
The President was right to let the international community know
that the United States would be walking away from the Kyoto
Protocol and to direct his Cabinet Secretaries to conduct a
thorough review of climate change policies. Based on that review,
the Bush Administration and Members of Congress will be better able
to determine the best approach to dealing with climate change
issues both domestically and internationally.
To
avoid another Kyoto-like approach, however, it is critical that the
President is not pressured to announce an alternative before all of
the facts have been analyzed pursuant to sound scientific
principles. The use of more sophisticated climate models that take
into account such variables as clouds and solar activity is vital
to more accurately determining the impact of human activity on
climate change.
The
President and the United States have an opportunity to lead on this
issue of climate change at the upcoming meeting on the Kyoto
Protocol in Bonn, Germany, in July. President Bush should instruct
the U.S. delegation to present not only his Administration's
reservations about the Protocol, but also flexible policy options
for addressing climate change. Such options include:
Market-based measures that encourage
countries and businesses to make voluntary reductions in criteria
pollutants, such as
streamlining the regulatory process, replacing the current
command-and-control regulatory scheme with flexible
results-oriented policies, and providing incentives to install
state-of-the-art technologies;
Tax cuts to stimulate investment in new,
cleaner, and more efficient technologies;
Targeted funding for research on the
science of climate change; and
Implementation of a "no regrets" approach
that emphasizes bilateral development of new technologies and
transfers of these technologies.
These options would replace the flawed
mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol with policies that are based on
sound science and free-market principles.
CONCLUSION
The Kyoto Protocol is fundamentally flawed and unfair, and
it would seriously harm the U.S. economy. Even if it comes fully
into force, it will not achieve its goal of reducing greenhouse
gases globally. It excludes developing countries from its binding
emissions reduction targets even though their total emissions will
surpass those of industrialized countries by 2020. It will
significantly raise energy costs and will have a dramatic ripple
effect across entire economies.
Finally, it is based on flawed scientific
models. The science of global climate change is extremely complex
and still evolving. Scientists have a long way to go before they
can accurately predict temperature changes and their impact on the
environment. The importance of basing climate change policy on
sound environmental science, rather than alarmist rhetoric, cannot
be overstated.
For
all these reasons, the President was right to walk away from the
Kyoto Protocol. Other countries should follow the President's lead
and refuse to ratify it. To do otherwise is shortsighted and, in
the long run, will prove to be both environmentally and
economically damaging.
Charli E. Coon, J.D., is Senior Policy
Analyst for Energy and Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute
for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
ENDNOTES