Wi th o r Wi th ou t You
                  The Response of the United States to Global Warming
  By Molly Cox
I t is the sense of the scientific community that carbon dioxide from unrestrained combustion of fossil fuels potentially is the most important environmental issue facing mankind.
-U.S. Department of Energy, report, 2 April 1979 *

html
HTML

   
    The 1990's witnessed an unprecented repsonse from soverign states to deal with the emerging global warming crisis. Regardless of personal opinions it is now impossible to ignore the environmental, political and cultural impacts of possible, if not probable, anthropogenic causes of global warming. Due to increased technology, the global warming debate no longer centers on the historic rise of temperature, rather the debate revolves around the cause. Regions of the world have reacted very differently to the environmental crisis. Reactions of the world’s industrialized democracies can be grouped into two categories; multilateral cooperation under Kyoto and the unilateral action taken by the United States. The effects of these two responses remains to be seen.

html    
   
HTML


    The history of the global warming debate began in 1865 when the English scientific community officially began documenting the global temperature of the earth. By 1866 some scientists began contemplating the possibility of a link between temperature and atmospheric CO2. In 1896 Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius added to the speculation by hypothesizing that there was connection between the burning of coal and increases in atmospheric CO2. Sixty-two years passed before Arrhenius' hypothesis was seriously considered. In 1958 a continuous CO2 monitoring station was established on Mauna Loa. With a stable location, scientists were able to gather more reliable data, which in turn led to increase in creditability and awareness. Finally, by 1983 the EPA released a report on global warming that predicted a substantial rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. More importantly, the report predicted that the increases in CO2 levels would lead to increases in the global mean temperature between 1.5 degrees Centigrade and 5 degrees Centigrade by the second half of the 21st century.


html


html
html

Thomas R. Karl writes, "Climatologists are confident that over the past century, the global average temperature has increased has increased by about half a degree Celsius. This warming is thought to be at least partly the result of human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels in electric power plants and automobiles. Moreover, because populations, national economies and the use of technology are all growing, the global average temperature is expected to continue increasing, by an additional 1.0 to 3.5 degrees C by the year 2100." [The Coming Climate posted at: http://www.sciam.com/0597issue/0597karl.html]

HTML

IPPC predictions have been off in the past argue opponents who site that actual temperatures, depicted by the yellow line, have ventured outside IPPC estimates. 

    Not everyone agreed with the conclusions the Environmental Protection Agency reached in 1983. Some opponenents claimed that global warming was not occurring. In addition, they conceded that even if it was occurring, it would not necessarily be a bad thing. Although their influence over international policy has drastically declined since the advent of the IPCC, scientists that claim that global warming is purely a naturally phenomenon currently number over 17,000. They have signed a petition saying, in part, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." One of the 17,000 signers was weather researcher, Piers Corbyn. Corbyn claimed hat the IPCC had got it wrong. Corbyn, insists that the UNFCC has underestimated some of the indirect effects of the Sun on the Earth's climate. "Particles and magnetic effects from the Sun are the decisive influence that controls world temperatures," he said. "The evidence can be seen in the graphic representation of geomagnetic activity plotted alongside world temperatures. The two correlate very closely."


html

"I think there is a political agenda here. There is a lobby which makes money out of global warming promotion and research, and governments around the world collect taxes on the back of it all. If governments are serious, they should support research into solar effects." {http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1131000/1131275.stm}

                  HTML
The United States has spent $18 billion on climate research since 1990 -- three times as much as any other country, and more than Japan and all 15 nations of the EU combined.

    European countries are not among the unbelievers. 15 years ago Western European countries were so concerned about the trend in temperature that they introduced legislation in the General Assembly to create a series of conventions on climate change. Those conventions were held by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In 1992 the UNFCC held its first convention in Rio de Janeiro. By the end of convention countries, including the United States pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. Three years later, the participating countries convened in Berlin. There they decided to exclude developing countries from taking part in mandatory emissions reduction. The third Convention on Climate Change was held from December 1 to 11, 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. After hours of complicated negotiation, delegates from 166 governments agreed on a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The United States agreed to reduce emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012; the European Union agreed to an 8 percent reduction; and Japan pledged to cut emissions 6 percent. The requirements for the United States are much greater than the original U.S. proposal, under which emissions would be reduced to 1990 levels by 2012.

html


HTML

   


HTML  

   

    UNFCC drew their scientific information from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a non-partisan international scientific group drawing on the expertise of 2500 climate experts was created by the UN to collect data and make recommendations. The IPCC was set up under the sponsorship of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization. In May 1989, the first IPCC report was issued. It claimed that human activity does affect climate and that greenhouse gases are building up at a rate likely to cause unprecedented temperature increases. Barring cuts, it predicted a mean surface temperature increase between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Centigrade within the next century. The IPCC is constantly changing one nuance or another of its predictions. Currently, the IPCC has estimated that the Earth's average surface temperature rose by 0.6°C at the end of century. The IPPC’s worst-case scenario for future climate change predicts that the temperature may rise by as much as 5.8°C during this century. The IPCC contributes the rise to the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere that has increased by 31% percent.

    With a pool of knowledge gathered by the IPCC and the EPA, two American Presidents and five congressional bodies have attempted to resolve the anticipated crisis of climate change. The two Presidents have had two distinctly different reactions to global warming and its predicted consequences. The reaction of the Clinton administration was to join the other industrialized democracies under Kyoto. In contrast, the Bush administration decided to abandon international cooperation for a domestic solution.

 
    To help the US begin their journey to meet Kyoto’s target CO2 emission  President Clinton proposed nine immediate actions to begin addressing climate change. These actions included Tax Cuts, Credit for Early Action Industry by-Industry Consultations , Encouraging the Use of Energy-Efficient Products, Federal Procurement and Energy Use, Electricity Restructuring, setting a Concentration Goal for Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere and, Bilateral Dialogues ,Economics and Science Reviews: . {EPA}

    Unfortunately, not one of his nine proposals were ever enacted. Although President Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol and assured his European Allies that he would promote ratification; he did nothing. His efforts on behalf of Kyoto are reflected in the Senate’s 0-95 vote to oppose ratification of the Protocol. If President Clinton had been serious about ratifying the Kyoto Proctol, a few phone calls to the minority leadership of the United States Senate would have garnered at least one yea.

                
In 2001, when President Bush took office he immediately withdrew the United States' delegation from the Kyoto conversation. However, President Bush did keep and enact some of the Clinton administration’s domestic programs to reduce CO2 emission. In additon, President Bush annouced his Clear Skies Initiative. Focusing on tax credits and other incentives intended to encourage, but not force, the cooperation of industries and business, Bush's proposal aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by approximately 4.5 percent by the year 2012.

According to the White House’s Press Release the Clear Skies Initiative will lower the emissions of greenhouse gases by:


    Although the vast amount of American farmers and businesses are temporary relieved that the United States is not ratifying Kyoto, they are not joined by environmental non-governmental organization or any other industrialized democracy in the world.

    In the eyes of the European Union, President Bush is continuing George Washington’s tradition as a unilateralist, by isolating America from the Kyoto Protocol process. But, despite the pejorative proclamations from the European Union, President Bush not return to the Kyoto conversation because it would force the United States to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by thirty three percent while allowing developing countries like China and India to pursue voluntary reductions. President Bush and his cabinet will now work diligently enacting their domestic alternative to Kyoto’s multilateral contract.

    It was no secret to the European Union delegates at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that America’s elected elite were sentinels of sovereignty, hesitant to enter into any accord that subjugates national interest. Historically, American Presidents have rarely authorized an agreement that was not in the best interest of United States, and those few Executives that did were quickly rebuked by a livid Senate. Former President Clinton learned this lesson well when he asked the United States Senate to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in nineteen-ninety-eight. The resounding response was 0-95. What was of paramount importance across the pond was of little concern in the United States when juxtaposed with a compromised economy. As the Clinton administration faded the Bush Administration was being formed by staple statesmen who viewed the climate conferences as unsuccessful, citing that the Clinton delegation had won few concessions from the firm European Union. Disheartened by Europe’s staunch stance, President Bush declared that the Kyoto conversation had concluded. The United States would not participate in an international policy that sought to cripple its energy dependent economy.

    The immediate reaction from the European Community was similar to that of French Foreign Minister, Hubert Vandrine, whose initial statement to the foreign Press was, “We {Europe} are continuing our efforts to develop a humane and controlled globalization, even if the new American unilateralist isn't making things any easier." {Deutshe Presse-Agentur, 2002} In an attempt to quell rising European complaints President Bush followed the United States’ official withdrawal with a promise to find a domestic solution to the increased emission of greenhouse gases by industries within the United States. President Bush reveled his solution February 14, 2002 when he announced the Clear Skies Initiative that sought “to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of our economy” {Bush 2002}. The President suggested that this would be accomplished by tax incentives which would “harness the power of markets, the creativity of entrepreneurs, and draw upon the best scientific research” {Bush 2002}.The main objectives of the Clear Skies Initiatives are to expanded research and development of climate-related science and technology, encourage use of renewable energy, improve methods the transportation, and enhance support for climate observation and mitigation in the developing world. If successful, the initiative will begin reducing carbon dioxide emissions before the participating Kyoto conference members ratify the agreement.

    The international community’s reception of the President’s Clear Skies Initiative was mixed from an approving Australia to an offended European Union. Margot Wallstrom the European Union Environment Commissioner proclaimed moments after the Clear Skies Initiative was revealed that “The initiative had the merit of raising awareness in the United States of the urgent need for action to cut greenhouse gas emissions. But the Kyoto deal was the only effective international framework for combating global warming (Deutshe Presse-Agentur, 2002).

    Ms. Wallstrom’s statement, indicates how upset the European Union remains that the United States, the largest of producer of greenhouse gases, walked away from the multilateral Kyoto Protocol. However, the blame for the departure of the United States delegation lies partially on the shoulders of the European Union. They left the United States little choice but to leave the negotiations when they refused to compromise with Frank Loy, the head diplomat from President Clinton’s delegation, on carbon sinks, developing countries and emissions trading. Previously the United States Congress had made clear to the Clinton delegation that without the adoption of carbon sinks, the inclusion of developing countries and the permission to buy unused emissions the Kyoto Protocol would not be ratified. Despite this information the negotiating ministers from the European Union refused to reconsider.

    Following the departure of the United States, the European Union negotiators re-evaluated their previous position and conceded two conditions they had denied the Americans to the Japanese delegation. In large part the refusal to negotiate may have been due to the fact that the European ministers were Social Democrats who relied on the Green party in their country to form a plurality in parliament.

    With natural gas finds in the North Sea and the shut down of old communist coal factories in Eastern Germany the European Union can easily accomplish their pre 1990 admissions level without sacrificing their economies. On the other hand, the United States would have been forced to forfeit approximately 4.3 percent of its Gross Domestic Product, making it possible for inefficient European industries to compete. Even the Economist, a foreign publication, acknowledged that “Some European ministers made it clear that they wanted Americans to feel some economic pain more than they wanted a workable agreement” {Economists,2002}. The Economist was not the only publication that felt the climate convention was less about emissions and more about a crippling the American economy. According to James Glassman, a resident fellow at AEI and the author of Kyoto is Still Doomed, “Europe has lost leadership to the U.S. in virtually every business sector. One way to fight back is to impose higher costs on the U.S. economy than on their own. That was the charm of Kyoto” {Glassman, 2002}.

    In the upcoming days the European Union will continue to pressure President Bush to return to the climate conference. Instead of being influenced by international persistence President Bush’s Press Secretary, Ari Flisher indicates that the President will stay the course by promoting his Clear Skies Initiative. Indicating that the President knows that nothing short of reducing greenhouses gases within America’s borders will quell the disgruntled European Union.

    Despite the United States withdraw from Kyoto, other developed nations that were uncertain, like Japan and Russia are asking the United States to return to the table and consider ratifying the Protocol. Most developed countries are in the process of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol in spite of the unilateral actions taken by the United States.

   


   


html html html   html

html
html


"I'm truly sorry man's dominion, has broken nature's social union" - Robert Burns 1785

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

http://unfccc.int/

http://www.state.gov/g/oes/climate/

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20020214/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_global_warming_8

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/2/8/160035.shtml

http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1131000/1131275.stm


____________________