The global warming agreement just reached in Kyoto, Japan, has about as much chance of being ratified by the U.S. Senate as a snowball in Haiti. For that we can be thankful.
There are several good reasons why:
1. The basic science on which the assumptions prompting the accord are based is shaky. All the temperature records, the meteorological data, the complex computer models can't yet account for all the variations and trends in climate and weather--in the past, let alone for the future.
Too many fudge factors and biased assumptions are built into the computer simulations, dissenters say. Some observable changes in climate aren't consistent with rising emissions of greenhouse gases, some facts don't support global warming theory. It was only two decades ago when some climatologists were predicting global cooling and the coming of a new ice age. Getting the science of global warming right is essential before forcing political and economic change.
A few of the scientists discounting the dangers of global warming are affiliated with organizations fronting for industries that would be hard hit by the Kyoto agreement. But others are independent and respected and their work published in leading scientific journals. Al Gore was out of line in Kyoto when he compared doubters to "the tobacco company spokesmen who insisted for so long that smoking did no harm."
2. Even if temperatures increase slightly over the next century it won't necessarily mean global calamity. Studies suggest most of the warming will occur in cold areas such as Siberia and during the winter nighttime.
3. Despite reassurances from the president and vice president, trying to reach the emissions reductions in the agreement would do serious harm to the U.S. economy. It calls for lowering emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to 7 percent below 1990 level by a compliance date between 2008 and 2012--a 30 to 35 percent decrease from the level the U.S. is predicted to have in another decade. The 15-nation European Union faces an 8 percent reduction, Japan 6 percent and several other nations smaller cuts.
Some of the reductions can be achieved by planting more trees and developing new forest preserves (remember how George Bush was ridiculed by proposing the U.S. plant a billion trees?). Some of it can come from new technology, as President Clinton reassures. But technology can't always be developed on demand and it's likely that reaching that goal would require significant cutbacks in energy use--especially further downsizing of cars
If energy costs rise and new controls go into effect, jobs would be lost in agriculture, transportation, industry and coal mining, perhaps millions of them, some economic forecasters predict. Alternative forms of energy and new technology would create some new jobs, as Clinton says, but at best, there would be widespread dislocation of workers.
4. The agreement exempts the developing countries--Brazil, China, India, Mexico and 120 others--from reducing emissions. They argue that the U.S. is the major offender, followed by other industrialized nations, and must cut back first while they must have the opportunity to build up their economies, as the U.S. has done.
But the developing nations are already producing between 30 and 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and because they have 80 percent of the world's population, their use of fossil fuels will continue to increase rapidly.
Several senators have told Clinton that the Senate will not ratify the proposed treaty until the developing nations participate and the President says he will not send it to the Senate until they do. He is not expected to submit it in any case until next November at the earliest. That gives him almost a year to use his powers of persuasion on the Senate, on Republicans, unions, big industry, dissenting scientists--and the developing nations. This is the sticking point most likely to doom the agreement.
5. There is no doubt the proposed treaty would move American production and jobs to developing countries. If U.S. industries must bear higher energy costs and pay for much more stringent emissions controls and expensive technology, they will be even more likely to shift their operations overseas where labor is already less expensive.
6. The treaty provides, in principle, for a system for emissions trading which would allow a nation or a company to buy "credits" from a country or company which had met its targets. Provisions aren't worked out. But it could become, essentially, a tax on industrialized nations and successful companies paid to developing nations.
The agreement would also use credits to reward companies in industrialized nations which share energy-saving technology with developing countries. That's a good idea. But the United States must guard against anything that could become a tax on its success or a way to handicap its industries in the growing global competition.
7. How to force compliance with emissions reductions is to be settled next November at a follow-up conference in Buenos Aires. But critics are alarmed about the possibility of new international controls over the American economy. At the same time, they note how difficult it can be for an international authority, such as the UN, to enforce an agreement with a recalcitrant nation, even when resorting to trade sanctions.
So far, the only American winners at Kyoto appear to be Al Gore, who freshened up his image as the nation's leading green, and Bill Clinton, who is being hailed for his flexibility (read cave-in) for agreeing to a reduction in emissions far below what he had earlier promised. Both have a feel-good issue for 1998. And both will be spared the consequences of the agreement when it is never ratified by the Senate.