Volume I, No. 3 August 1, 1997

ecologic Bonn

Published by Sovereignty International, Inc.

Roadblock Ahead

Delegates to the negotiating sessions should not be lulled into complacency by assurances from Undersecretary Timothy Wirth, Vice President Al Gore, or even President Bill Clinton; in America, the product of negotiations must be approved by the U.S. Senate -- and the American people. There is little comfort with the direction of current AGBM negotiations in the U.S. Senate, and even less among the American people.

Item: the protocol must "represent a significant step toward preventing dangerous human interference with climate change."

Since no one has yet determined what constitutes "dangerous human interference" it will be exceedingly difficult to meet this requirement of the U.S. Senate. The notion that the "danger" level is a "policy" issue rather than a "science" issue -- as suggested in a June 20 article in Science magazine -- is absurd. The notion that the "danger" level be set arbitrarily at 350-400 ppmv, as suggested in the same article, is as ridiculous as the European Union's suggestion that the danger point be set at 550 ppmv -- without any scientific evidence that either level of greenhouse gas concentrations constitutes a danger.

Item: the protocol must "provide countries with incentives and flexibility...using market-oriented approaches...emissions trading, and appropriate joint implementation...."

With Kyoto less than five months away, and with no consensus on either the underlying science of global warming, or the danger point of human-induced greenhouse gas concentrations, there is little to no hope of reaching agreement on mechanisms for incentives and flexibility or on market-oriented approaches -- that would satisfy this requirement of the U.S. Senate.

Item: the protocol must "include credible compliance mechanisms."

Neither the U.S. Senate, nor the American people will accept legally binding limits and timetables from Kyoto -- with the compliance mechanisms to be developed later. The last pig-in-a-poke presented to the U.S. Senate -- the Convention on Biological Diversity -- did not even make it to a vote; the Kyoto protocol could easily meet the same fate.

Item: the protocol must "not result in harm to the economy of the United States...."

According to a study released by the U.S. Department of Energy on July 11, proposals now under consideration for the Kyoto protocol could "severely harm" the U.S. economy. The study assumed that the Kyoto protocol would result in "rising energy prices" which would severely harm the chemical industry, aluminum smelters, steel producers, the paper industry, petroleum refiners, and the cement industry. These industries, the foundation of the American economy, are not likely to be sacrificed on the fabricated altar of global warming.

Item: the protocol must ensure "scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period."

The U.S. Senate and the American people are adamant on this point. If the objective of the protocol is truly to stabilize global emissions, developing countries cannot be excluded from compliance within the same period as developed Country parties. If there are to be limitations and reductions

of greenhouse gas emissions, the American people want the limitations and reductions imposed fairly and equally. Anything less will meet certain opposition by the American people.

Item: Before any protocol will be ratified by the U.S. Senate, it must be accompanied by a "detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory action...," and " a detailed analysis of the costs and benefits...."

Since the U.S. Department of Energy's own study confirms the devastating costs described in independent studies, and since there are few, if any, scientifically-supported, demonstrable benefits to be derived from the proposals now being negotiated, any protocol that emerges from Kyoto will face an uphill battle in the U.S. Senate, and an even tougher battle with the American people.

Many Americans -- some of whom are members of the U.S. Senate -- are not convinced that global warming or human-induced climate change even exists. Historically, Americans have always shouldered their share -- and more -- of global burdens. But evidence of need must be compelling and the benefits must be real. Neither the evidence of need, nor the benefits of compliance have been sufficiently demonstrated in the proposals now under consideration for the Kyoto protocol

What happens if America says no?

A random, unscientific poll of delegates who attended the AGBM meetings last March, revealed a variety of answers to the question "What happens if the Kyoto protocol is not ratified by the United States?"

"The U.S. must ratify."

"The U.S. is the cause of the problem; they must participate in its solution."

"It would set back the global warming initiative a decade or more."

"The Climate Change Convention would be destroyed."

"I can't even imagine such a thing."

Almost all of the responses fell into one of these categories.

The hard, practical fact of the matter is that America must be a participant in any effective effort to prevent "dangerous human interference" with global climate. The protocol that emerges from Kyoto could easily slam shut the door through which American support for the climate change initiative must flow. Nearly one-third of the money used by the COP in 1996, came from America -- with the approval of the U.S. Senate. If the U.S. Senate cannot support the protocol produced by the COP, future funding could be in jeopardy.

Despite the assertions of the U.S. President, Vice President, and the IPCC's Second Assessment Report (SAR), Americans are not convinced that global warming or human induced climate change is a problem worthy of the draconian remedies being discussed during these negotiating sessions. Should a protocol emerge from Kyoto that ignores these concerns, Americans can be expected to urge their Senators to kill the protocol.

Americans are as concerned as anyone about the environment and especially about potential dangers that may lie ahead. But they are not easily stampeded into reactionary policies that appear to be more politically motivated than scientifically justified. When those proposed policies promise certain economic devastation, Americans tend to recoil, and demand proof that such policies are required. Neither the hyperbole of environmental NGOs, nor the carefully-crafted language of the SAR, has provided that proof.

If, in order to comply with the Berlin Mandate, the Kyoto protocol must be "legally binding," it should "bind" all member nations to nothing more than the commitment to continue objective research while voluntarily continuing their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Quantified emission limits -- imposed and enforced by an international body -- is precisely the threshold many Americans are unwilling to cross.

The most important constituency to be considered by the negotiators should be those people who are affected by the decisions reached, and those who must support the decisions of the negotiators. The voices of these affected people have not been adequately heard by the delegates to the AGBM.

Two years of laborious work of the COP can easily become an expensive exercise in futility unless the concerns, fears, and ideas of the affected people -- in all nations -- are taken into account.

Nowhere is it more important that the affected people support the Kyoto protocol than in America. Delegates should be aware that no such support now exists in America. American negotiators speak only for the Administration, whose policies must be approved by the U.S. Senate -- whose policies must be approved by the American people.

What Americans are saying

The following comments are taken from organizations in America that have made public statements about the negotiations currently underway. Some of the organizations are members or affiliates of Sovereignty International; many are not. All, however, have publicly expressed concerns about the protocol which may be of interest to delegates.

American Farm Bureau Federation

Binding and enforceable controls on greenhouse gas emissions that would apply only to developed countries would severely disadvantage U.S. farmers and ranchers in today's global markets. Without proper scientific and economic analysis and assessment, U.S. farmers and ranchers may be placed at a serious disadvantage with agricultural producers in countries which do not plan to reduce greenhouse gases.

Small Business Survival Committee

The impact of an international treaty that would require the United States to meet binding greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets would be a bureaucratic nightmare for the small business community. Any energy-intensive business -- bakeries, dry cleaners, auto repair shops -- even, ironically, recycling shops would be forced to operate smaller, less business-useful vehicles, pay higher gas taxes and a new carbon tax, and be required to navigate yet another layer of federal regulations and mandates -- the obvious consequence would be the destruction of American jobs.

American Recreation Coalition

Almost every American enjoys some form of outdoor recreation -- time spent which yields improved physical and mental health, stronger family and community bonds and better job performance. Recreation often requires durable vehicles with rugged frames, strong suspension, ample cargo space, higher ground clearance, engines with ample torque, good towing capabilities and off-road capabilities. If the trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles so vital to America's recreation community today lose these unique features, as could be the case if mandatory greenhouse gas emissions controls resulted in markedly higher vehicle fuel economy standards, the opportunities and quality of experience for American recreationists would be sorely degraded.

Alliance for America

The farming, ranching, logging, mining, fishing, recreation and private property rights families of the Alliance for America are deeply concerned about the proposed global climate agreement because we know who would ultimately pay for it -- we would. We would pay with our wallets through higher prices for energy and every product made using American energy. We would pay with our jobs as American companies would find themselves in poor competitive situations and either close or relocate to other nations. We would pay for it with our environment because industries could be forced to relocate in countries that do not have the economic strength to practice environmental restraint. There is a thin line between environmental sensitivity and environmental insanity -- the global climate agreement crosses that line.

Coalition for Vehicle Choice

Americans who rely on larger passenger cars and full size pickups, sport utility vehicles and minivans will be among the first to feel the pain if mandatory greenhouse gas emissions become reality. If the U.S. signs the proposed global climate treaty in December, motorists can look forward to higher gasoline taxes, higher federal fuel economy (CAFE) standards that will mean smaller, lighter cars and trucks and thus more deaths and injuries on our highways, possible mileage taxes or tolls, and restrictions on driving.

National Marine Manufacturers Association

Mandatory emissions controls on carbon dioxide emissions would mean higher motor vehicle fuel economy standards for U.S. vehicles. Higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards would mean smaller, lighter cars and trucks that would be unable to pull most boats and trailers. This would produce disastrous and unintended consequences for boat builders, trailer manufacturers and thousands of small boat dealers by reducing the availability of vehicles with adequate and safe towing capabilities.

American Legislative Exchange Council

Congress must evaluate the economic, environmental, and societal impact of imposing involuntary limits on greenhouse gas emissions before moving any further with complying with the Rio Treaty. If the Congress finds compliance entails great cost and possible adverse consequences to the environment and society, it should take such steps as are appropriate to withdraw from the Rio Treaty, pursuant to Article 25 of that Treaty

Recreation Vehicle Industries Association

Americans love to recreate -- it's a great part of the American lifestyle. Many Americans drive to their favorite beach or campground or national forest in a recreational vehicle which is large enough to be comfortable and accommodate the family. Our members are concerned about mandatory greenhouse gas emissions controls that would raise the price of gasoline and force Americans into smaller lighter vehicles and restrict their ability to enjoy the great outdoors. U.S. negotiators should refuse to sign onto a treaty that requires compulsory reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Requiring binding targets and time tables to reduce worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases would result in higher energy prices and lead to a wide variety of restrictions on economic growth in the U.S. If the U.S. were required to comply with aggressive efforts to cap emissions, the resulting economic dislocation and negative impact on small businesses would far outweigh any potential environmental benefit. Additionally, this would be a largely self-defeating policy that leaves all developing countries exempt from any meaningful discipline to curb emissions.

Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)

With 25,000 supporters nationwide and a scientific advisory board that includes some 45 recognized experts from universities and laboratories around the world, CFACT stands firmly opposed to an international agreement that would mandate cuts in so-called "greenhouse gas" emissions. Accurate satellite measurements and recent temperature records in the Arctic reveal global cooling, not warming, over the past five decades. In addition, only 3% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere comes from man-made sources, so any forced reductions of man-made carbon dioxide would have a negligible impact at best. Since any proposed cuts in greenhouse gases would not be based on sound science and would have a major, indeed catastrophic negative impact on people worldwide, CFACT urges the nations of the world to reject these ill-advised mandates.

National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds

The National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds, representing 3,300 facilities in the United States, believes that there is not enough evidence, at this time, that global climate change is occurring to the extent that it would have catastrophic consequences. We oppose any international treaty that would force the U.S. to act prematurely in regards to global climate change.

Associated General Contractors

The climate change treaty currently being negotiated to require drastic curbs in carbon dioxide emissions would result in higher energy prices and higher motor vehicle fuel economy standards. The membership of the Associated General Contractors of America is comprised of businesses that would be negatively impacted by any rise in the price of energy, and in particular are concerned that efforts to raise fuel economy standards would restrict the availability of work vehicles necessary in the construction industry.

National Grange

The National Grange is opposed to mandatory caps on emissions of carbon dioxide. The small business people and farmers that comprise our membership are very concerned about the likely increases in the price of basic fuels and the predictable negative impact on the availability and price of work vehicles that would result from attempting to comply with the treaty as it is now being negotiated. We are particularly concerned that this climate treaty negotiation will be inordinately costly to our membership who make their livelihood in farming.

Coalitions For America

The international treaty now being negotiated to require mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide emissions will hit every American where it hurts -- in the pocketbook. The United States should not sign up to any treaty that will place us at a competitive disadvantage in the world market and place us at the mercy of an international regulatory body to settle enforcement disputes.

Holstein Association of America

The Holstein Association of America is opposed to attempts to cap greenhouse emissions and is concerned about the resulting increase in energy prices. Our membership is comprised of farmers and breeders who are not able to pass along the increased cost of business that will occur as energy taxes are raised. An additional concern is the probable increase in fuel economy standards that will also result from efforts to implement this international treaty.

National Association of Plumbing, Heating and Cooling Contractors

The contracting industry is comprised of small business people who rely heavily upon the availability and relative low cost of vans and other work vehicles. For this reason, the National Association of Plumbing, Heating and Cooling Contractors opposes an international treaty capping emissions of carbon dioxide. This treaty will lead to higher U.S. motor vehicle fuel economy standards and unnecessary energy taxes.

National Motorists Association

American mobility has been and is, crucial to the development of the U.S. economy. Because this mobility would be severely restricted by large increases in gasoline taxes and increases in federal fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks, the National Motorists Association opposes the current climate treaty negotiations that mandate greenhouse gas emission caps. We further believe that the dubious foundations on which the "global warming" theory is based does not justify the economic and social dislocation to be created by these proposed treaty provisions.

Competitive Enterprise Institute

The push to restrict greenhouse gas emissions is portrayed as an attempt to protect our planet. In fact, it would weaken the two major forces that enable civilization to protect itself -- economic growth and technological advancement. The scientific basis for global warming fears are exceedingly slim, but the human costs of these proposed policies are far, far greater than their advocates acknowledge. These policies would cripple the economies of the developed world and relegate the Third World to perpetual poverty. They are totally unjustified.

Emergency Nurses CARE

Binding controls on carbon dioxide emissions could lead to higher vehicle fuel economy standards. And safety experts agree that higher fuel economy standards would mean smaller, lighter cars and trucks that provide less protection to their occupants in crashes.

Consumer Alert

Scientific uncertainty about both the levels of mankind's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and the global warming theory should act as a brake on discussions of stringent steps developed countries would have to take to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. What policy makers are ignoring are the probable effects of their hasty actions on people in developed countries -- they will be the ones who bear the costs of tight restrictions, high energy taxes, and higher prices for energy use. Loss of jobs and lower living standards for many will impact the poor the hardest.

National Concrete Masonry Association

The National Concrete Masonry Association is concerned that the international climate treaty negotiation to set binding targets and timetables for carbon dioxide emissions reduction could increase transport fuel costs and restrict the availability of vehicles necessary for our members to operate their businesses efficiently and profitably.

National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)

The NAM opposes a legally binding international agreement on climate change that requires industrialized nations to reduce levels of greenhouse gas emissions, to the exclusion of developing nations. Such an agreement would hurt America's manufacturers, workers and families, with little or no environmental benefit, since new restrictive energy policies in the U.S. simply would force the flight of U.S. investment to developing countries. Millions of Americans could lose their jobs, and American manufacturers could take a severe hit in the world marketplace. With no consensus in the scientific community to support the theory of enhanced global warming, it makes no sense for the U.S. to participate in an international political compromise that would employ drastic measures without reaching its goal.

CENEX, Inc.

CENEX, Inc, is a regional agricultural cooperative serving 320,000 farmers and ranchers in 16 states through its 1,400 local cooperative member-owners. Mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions would have a staggering impact, particularly on agriculture. Mandatory carbon taxes -- or emissions trading systems -- would increase the production costs for crop protection products, diesel fuel, electricity, feed and seed, fertilizer, gasoline and propane. U.S. agricultural exports would decrease significantly because of the exemptions provided for developing countries, and the U.S. economy would suffer accordingly. Arbitrary flat reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, with exemptions for all developing countries, are being proposed without regard to their impact on farmers and other working people. What is truly amazing is that the U.S. government has apparently not made any comprehensive analysis of the cumulative effects of the global climate treaty and the rash of other environmental controls proposed or being considered by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Center for Energy & Economic Development (CEED)

The Clinton Administration's support for legally binding emission reductions and time-lines can only result in increased energy costs for all sectors of our nation's economy. This means higher costs for electricity, and ultimately more expensive food, clothing, and housing. These increased costs will hit people with fixed or low incomes hardest. Anyone truly concerned about the health and well-being of American citizens must question why the White House refuses to hold heavily militarized countries such as China and India to the same international standards. Our jobs and industry will move in great numbers to these and other countries exempted from the treaty mandates; emissions will not decrease, and there will be no real environmental benefit from Americans' sacrifice. There is no scientific consensus on the climate debate, and no economic or scientific justification for the Administration's position. If we continue down this course, we will certainly build a bridge to the 21^st Century -- a bridge over which American jobs travel to other countries.

The Fertilizer Institute

By supporting binding and enforceable controls on greenhouse gas emissions the Clinton administration has agreed to the UN Climate Change Treaty without communicating the economic and trade consequences the treay will impose on American agriculture. A recent study warns the UN Climate Chage Treaty will raise a typical U.S. Farmer's cost of production by 60 cents a gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. The study estimates fertilizer costs would increase a minimum of 14 percent, farmstead electriciy costs will increase 52 percent and home heating oil costs will rise more than 40 percent as a result of the treaty. Other economic and trade consequences of the treaty could be new Btu/energy taxes, expensive mandatory emissions permits, caps on U.S. agricultural production and agricultural production moving off shore. The U.S. Senate should vote against ratification of the Climate Change proposal and not allow the United Nations to dictate U.S. farm, energy and economic policy through an international treaty.

People for the West

Our 25,000 members produce the food, fiber and minerals that underpin both our national security and our high standard of living. A new draft study by the Department of Energy suggests that potential increases in energy costs driven by an international agreement to control global warming could lay to waste several major U.S. industry sectors by 2010 without significant benefits to the environment. For example, cutbacks in fossil fuel use would certainly mean downsizing in energy and mining, producing massive layoffs. Carbon taxes levied only on developed nations like the U.S. would cause industry relocation, which would cripple our international competitiveness. In short, this is a very high stakes game for this country to be involved in without overwhelming scientific evidence that the threat of global climate change is imminent and genuine. Until that is the case, we intend to use every resource at our command to oppose U.S. participation in such an agreement.

Association of American Railroads

Freight railroads play a key role in keeping America's economy strong and U.S. living standards among the highest in the world. Freight railroads safely transport most of the coal used to generate affordable and reliable electric power, many of the chemicals used to manufacture industrial and consumer products, and most of the newly-produced vehicles that enhance personal mobility and productivity. The adverse economic consequences of restrictions on greenhouse gases would far outweigh possible environmental benefits -- especially in light of the considerable scientific uncertainty about the nature and extent of any problem. Until these matters are better understood, the Administration and Congress should not rush to judgment on the issue of climate change, and thereby place in jeopardy the nation's strong economy, American lifestyles, and job security.

The Business Roundtable

Until the scientific and economic issues are better understood, there should be no rush to impose climate change policy measures, either by individual nations or collectively. Further agreements reached must include a requirement or negotiating process to bring all countries, developed and developing, into the commitment process. However, it is critical that an analysis and assessment of the impact on the U.S. economy be completed before any new commitments on climate change are made. Effective solutions to address climate change will require a healthy national and international economic order; hasty actions which undermine economic vitality will only defer our ability to responsibly address this issue over the longer term.

Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO)

The individual members of our nearly 700 organizations come from all walks of life and are truly "grassroots" America. Inevitable increases in the cost of energy resulting from the proposed Kyoto protocol will take a significant bite out of family income from families already struggling to make ends meet

Citizens for a Sound Economy

The debate over global warming in the coming months is enormously important to the future of all Americans. At risk is $350 billion annual loss from the U.S. economy from mandated greenhouse gas reductions. Such costs will place tremendous hardships on average consumers, which makes little sense given the lack of scientific evidence that the earth is warming. The United States has already spent more than a trillion dollars to clean the environment, and there are many environmental issues that federal and state regulatory agencies are pursuing. Consumers must be assured that any new environmental programs do, in fact, provide benefits that outweigh their costs. In the case of global warming there is not enough scientific evidence to support a costly new regulatory regime.

Americans for Tax Reform

The Clinton Administration's support for legally binding emissions reductions will impact every taxpayer. Americans for Tax Reform believes any global climate treaty must be based on careful scientific study, consistent with the cost of implementing programs (i.e., costs to families, communities and businesses, and effects on personal lifestyles) as well as estimated benefits. The Administration's proposal could adversely affect the personal mobility of millions of Americans, by restricting (or increasing the cost of) vehicle usage, through such programs as those mentioned above (mandatory carpooling, centralized inspection programs, mandatory use of more expensive gasoline, new taxes and tolls on driving, and restrictions on the use of recreational vehicles and light trucks).

Who should participate?

The answer is easy: representatives of the people who are affected by the negotiations. The easy answer, of course, presents horrendous problems for the Secretariat. The administrative and budgetary implications could be enormous. Such a policy of open access could easily see more NGO lobbyists than delegates -- which is not all that unusual in free, democratic societies. If any NGOs participate in the negotiations, then all that wish to participate should be allowed to do so -- on an equal footing.

All NGOs could be banned from participation in the negotiations, forcing them to do their lobbying at the national level. Such a policy would fly in the face of years of struggle by NGOs to gain more involvement in policy development, and reverse UN policy to utilize NGOs more. But fairness and good governance demands one or the other. Either all may speak -- on an equal footing -- or none may speak.

The idea that only those NGOs that "declare support for the aims of the Convention," which is said to be "in line with practice in the United Nations system," is a fatally flawed idea that can only result in resentment and ultimate rejection by those who are excluded from the deliberation of policies that affect them. Good governance occurs when dissenting views are heard and accommodated. The deliberate, systematic exclusion of dissent hardly describes an institution that cherishes "transparent" or "democratic" processes.

Whatever criteria that may be established for NGO participation, should be applied uniformly and applied to those that are already accredited, as well as those which may apply in the future. Recently raised questions about "what are their aims, who are their members, and by whom are they funded" were not legitimate questions asked of those NGOs that are already accredited. Why are these questions being raised about NGOs which may apply in the future -- if not to search for some basis for exclusion?

"Should a greater effort be made to diversify the geographic sources of contributions by NGOs to the Convention process? No! Taxpayers are already burdened by the expense of getting official delegates to the negotiating sessions. Taxpayers should not be further burdened by financing the cost of NGO lobbyists. Legitimate NGOs who have a constituency to represent should be repulsed by the idea of charging their expenses to taxpayers.

Any mechanism for consultations with NGOs that even appears to be selective and exclusionary is counter to the published goals of the FCCC, and worse, could result in the loss of support among the people who are affected by the policies being negotiated. To gain support -- especially in America -- it is essential that all of the of the people be heard, considered, and accommodated in the polices that affect their lives.

Next Article | Table of Contents