Volume I, No. 5-October 28, 1997

ecologic Bonn

Published by Sovereignty International, Inc.

U.S. Senate not swayed by media hype

Greenpeace co-founder, Paul Watson, told a Forbes reporter: "It doesn't matter what is true; what matters is what people believe is true" (Forbes Magazine, Nov. 11, 1991 p. 174). What people believe is true is shaped by what they are told by the media. According to the World Wide Fund for Nature, some 72 percent of the American people believe that human activity is causing global warming. The people whose beliefs are shaped by primary research, rather than by media hype, have come to a different conclusion.

Benjamin Santer, lead author of the IPCC chapter on the detection of greenhouse warming, says: "It's unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the IPCC chapter.... We say quite clearly that few scientists would say the attribution issue was a done deal."

Neither truth, nor facts, have slowed the media hype generated by those who insist that "the overwhelming majority," and "the consensus" of scientists agree that anthropogenic global warming is already occurring, while ignoring the growing evidence that climate scientists have reached a different conclusion. In a survey of climate scientists conducted by the Meteorologisches Institut Universitat Hamburg and GKS Forchungszentrium, 67 percent of Canadian climate scientists rejected the notion that anthropogenic global warming is already occurring. In Germany, the number was 87 percent. And in America, the number was 97 percent. A separate survey of the official climatologists employed by the individual states in America revealed that 58 percent rejected the notion that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.

But, as Paul Watson says, it doesn't matter what is true; what matters is what people believe is true.

In America, a rapidly growing number of people are separating truth and fact from media hype. Among them is Senator Trent Lott, Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate. He says that the President's Plan -- so roundly criticized in Bonn -- fails to meet the basic requirements of the Hagel-Byrd Resolution passed unanimously by the Senate. Even if COP III should adopt the President's plan in Kyoto, it would "face a very cool reception in the Senate," Lott says.

Trent Lott is one of many Senators who have separated truth and fact from media hype: "The political agenda developed by activists is not supported by evidence developed by scientists. It is important that emotions not lead governments into chasing non-existent solutions to highly exaggerated problems."

Lott says the Senate will judge the Kyoto agreement on five basic principles:

First, there must be no erosion of American sovereignty. The Senate will not ratify a treaty that creates yet another unaccountable UN bureaucracy with the power to regulate American economic well-being.
Second, there must be no hidden taxes or wealth-transfer schemes. The President's plan would have the net result of transferring American resources to other countries and increasing costs to our producers and consumers.
Third, there must be no loss of American jobs. Mr. Gore and others may be willing to sacrifice American workers for their dubious environmental theories, but the Senate is not.
Fourth, American business cannot be placed at a disadvantage overseas. The Senate will not support a treaty which jeopardizes our ability to compete in the global marketplace.
Finally, there must be no special advantages to major polluters in the Third World. It makes neither environmental nor economic sense to sign a "global " treaty in Kyoto that places no legally-binding limits on emission from China, India, Mexico, Brazil and other developing countries.

Lott says: "In Kyoto, he [the President] should be prepared to walk away from a bad deal that risks America's prosperity and leaves much of the world off the hook. If he does not, let me assure him now, the Senate will."

Averting tragedy in Kyoto

With great optimism, AOSIS proposed 20% below 1990 levels by 2005 as the target and timetable for greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Finally, after months of stalling and delay, America announced its target and timetable: 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Do these two, widely divergent positions mean that the Kyoto protocol will reflect "middle ground" somewhere between these extremes? If it does, it will likely die in Kyoto. Real-world reality forced the President to advance a target and timetable that he knew would be unsatisfactory to the rest of the world in order to have any hope of winning the support of the U.S. Senate and the American people. And there is no assurance that either the Senate or the American people will support the President's proposal; there is almost no chance that a more stringent proposal could win approval. What, then, are the delegates to do in Kyoto?

It should be obvious that the nations of the world are nowhere near ready to agree on targets, timetables, monitoring and compliance mechanisms, or an enforcement regime. Nor will they be ready in Kyoto. Delegates may be well advised to recognize that reality and devise a strategy to salvage the process rather than risk losing the entire treaty.

Should the delegates insist on going forward with unrealistic targets and timetables, without acceptable compliance and enforcement mechanisms -- in order to meet the Kyoto deadline -- the entire process, and perhaps the treaty itself, could be seriously jeopardized. There is a large and growing number of Americans who simply do not believe that even the President's modest proposal is justified by the science. Three powerful U.S. Senators have already advised the U.S. Secretary of State of the circumstances that will trigger reconsideration of the entire treaty by the U.S. Senate.

There is a strategy discussed among the more radical proponents of global warming which would have the delegates adopt the most stringent targets and timetable possible by the widest possible margin, in order to isolate the United States as a target for global ridicule -- to shame the U.S. into compliance. That is a dangerous strategy. Far more than just the climate change treaty could be at risk.

On the other hand, delegates could recognize the political reality in the world and choose to use Kyoto to restore the mission of the Conference of the Parties to its original purpose -- to implement a voluntary effort by the members to prevent "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." The entire process becomes highly suspect when the delegates appear to be more interested in limiting energy use in developed nations and transferring technology to developing nations, than about determining at what levels of concentration anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions become dangerous. While many proponents of global warming may "believe" existing levels are dangerous, their beliefs have not been substantiated with scientific evidence. Public policy should not be dictated by the "beliefs" of global warming proponents.

Proposed rule change

Three of America's most powerful Senators -- Jesse Helms, Chair of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Rod Grams, Chair of the Subcommittee on International Operations, and Chuck Hagel, Chair of the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy -- sent a letter to Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, advising her that a proposed "rule change" would not exclude the Senate from the treaty process.

The proposed rule change, offered by the European Union (EU) "would permit parties to the FCCC to adopt protocols by a three-quarter majority," according to the Senators' letter. The Senators told the Secretary that "If adopted, the EU proposal would cause an even more dramatic shift in these critical negotiations away from the interests of the United States." In America, the U.S. Senate must approve any treaty signed by the President.

The Senate is on record as having rejected legally binding targets and timetables as an acceptable provision of the FCCC. "We believe any effort to amend the FCCC in this regard...would require the Administration to resubmit the entire amended FCCC to the Senate for its advice and consent." By a vote of 95-0, the U.S. Senate has adopted a resolution which says any agreement on global warming must meet two specific conditions: (1) no adverse economic impact on America; and (2) all nations must be equally bound.

The EU rule-change proposal is being interpreted by some as a "back-door" attempt to by-pass the U.S. Senate. Should the Senators' fears be validated by the decision of the delegates, any agreement reached in Kyoto will be instantly jeopardized. There is little patience in the Senate for such finagling -- and even less for the protocol proposals now on the table.

U.S. Proposal: an attempt to

destroy the world...? Now, really!

More hyperbole and hype surround the climate change negotiations. The assertion that the U.S. proposal is "an attempt to destroy the world in pursuit of U.S. economic interests," is an example of the fundamental problem that underlies the entire negotiations -- hyperbole and hype. The vast majority of the delegates, no doubt, are sincerely seeking realistic solutions to the possibility that human activity may affect global climate. Hyperbolic media hype distorts reality and reasonableness. For example, it is not reasonable for the IPCC to admit, on the one hand, that it cannot calculate the efficiency of carbon sinks, while on the other hand, it proclaims that "billions of people could be impacted" by all manner of calamity -- including sea-level rise, measured to the centimeter.

As Ambassador Hamblin clearly stated, the U.S. position advances what the U.S. Administration considers to be a "realistic" set of goals. The U.S. Senate, and the American people -- growing weary of hyperbole and hype -- may well consider the President's measured proposal too much to stomach.

The age-old accusation that "the U.S. with less than 5% of the world's population, enjoying more than 22% of the world's wealth and emitting more than 25% of the world's greenhouse gases..." will gain little sympathy from Americans. The American people, 5% of the world's population, had to earn the wealth which pays the lion's share of the cost of these negotiating sessions, create the lion's share of the technology that is expected to be transferred, and fund the lion's share of the "Clean Development Fund," and the "Compensation Fund." If given the choice between the goods and services, military defense, humanitarian relief and financial aid provided by America -- and zero greenhouse gas emissions from America, there would be no contest among reasonable people. It is those who persist in producing hyperbole and hype that endanger the world by pursuing political power to "not allow" America to continue producing the economic wealth, technological innovations, and free market opportunities the world so desperately needs.

Support weak for climate agreement

Two separate public opinion polls show that the American public offers little support for the greenhouse gas emission reduction agreement now in final stages of negotiation. A poll released by the World Wildlife Federation reported that 72% of the American people believed global warming was occurring, and that 60 percent agreed that "stricter controls on carbon dioxide emissions are worth the cost and would protect health and create new jobs." But when they were asked if they would be willing to pay a 50-cent per gallon tax -- even when the tax is rebated through income tax deductions -- more than half of the respondents said "no."

The Small Business Survival Committee's poll found that 60 percent of Americans oppose a climate treaty that would destroy American jobs. Eighty-six percent believe that developing countries should be treated exactly as developed countries in any agreement, and 67 percent do not want America to provide free technology to other countries. And 73 percent oppose "locking the United States into long-term, costly programs before we know how best to respond."

One of the most impressive polls appeared in the Washington Post in the form of a three-page advertisement. More than eleven-hundred organizations representing all 50 American states urged the President not to sign a premature, legally-binding agreement in Kyoto. By even the most conservative estimates, the combined membership of the eleven-hundred organizations represents as many as 15-million Americans.strong>

Commentary:

Last Chance

The success of the climate change negotiating process may well be measured by what did not occur, rather than by what did occur at the 8^th AGBM negotiating session. If the delegates march forward toward the production of a legally binding protocol -- to meet the Kyoto deadline -- which is then ultimately rejected by America and other Annex I countries, Kyoto and the process will be an historic failure. If, on the other hand, the delegates recognize that there is nothing sacred about the Kyoto deadline, and that the protocol is nowhere near ready for presentation to the world, both the protocol and the process may be salvageable.

Early this century, another group of international delegates negotiated a different treaty. They assumed that because President Woodrow Wilson supported idea, that the League of Nations would become the seat of global governance.

In America, neither the President, nor the delegates to any UN Conference, can bind the nation to any treaty without the approval of the U.S. Senate and the support of the American people.

The protocol now being rushed to completion may well be destined to the same fate as the League of Nations. Neither the U.S. Senate, nor the American people are convinced that there is a legitimate, science-based need for the draconian reductions of greenhouse gas emissions now being discussed. Moreover, the inequitable implementation measures being discussed reveal the protocol to be more focused on the redistribution of wealth than on the reduction of global greenhouse emissions.

There is no need for the delegates to risk rejection of their efforts. There is no need to rush into unnecessary action. Even if science eventually establishes a direct link between human activity and climate change -- a link which has not yet been established -- there will be time for appropriate action. There will be time to continue to benefit from the voluntary actions called for by the treaty. In three short years, voluntary action reduced emission of Annex 1 countries by nearly 5%, while private industries voluntarily invested more than $500 billion in countries dependent upon the World Bank.

There will be time to develop new, affordable, alternative technology. There will be time for developing nations to realize their economic potential. There will be time to refine the protocol to make it an agreement that all nations and all people can support.

Should the delegates insist on produceing a document at Kyoto that is ultimately rejected, Kyoto will go down in history as the place where the Convention on Climate Change unraveled. Kyoto can be remembered as the place where the negotiating process gained credibility because the delegates were unwilling to compromise the integrity of an important process -- just to meet an arbitrary deadline.

There is much work yet to be done; delegates should not jeopardize the work already done just to produce an inadequate document at Kyoto -- that is likely to be rejected.