/IPS ENVIRONMENT BULLETIN 06/ ENVIRONMENT: U.S. Plans for Binding Climate Change Accord Hailed

By Pratap Chatterjee Reprint | | Print |

Pratap Chatterjee

SAN FRANCISCO, Jul 20 1996 (IPS) - The U.S. announcement that it wants to achieve a binding agreement to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases reverses five years of stalling by Washington, say environmental activists.

Tim Wirth, Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs, announced the new U.S. position Wednesday in Geneva at talks among some 150 nations that signed the 1992 treaty on climate change.

“This is a big deal,” Wirth told reporters later by telephone. “Saying that we want to have a target that is binding is a clear indication that the United States is very serious about taking steps and leading the rest of the world. We will be getting more and more specific as the next year and a half rolls through.”

Wirth had told delegates that the United States wanted governments to be allowed to choose how to meet the goals in a binding treaty. For its part, Washington wants to apply market based solutions such as pollution trading permits and energy efficiency measures.

“It is the target that should be binding, not the individual measures, thus allowing maximum flexibility in implementation,” he said.

The New York-based Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) welcomed the news. “It shows that they have accepted the judgment of the scientific community that climate change is happening and that something has to be done about it,” says Michael Oppenheimer, an atmospheric physicist at the EDF.

But Kelly Sims, a spokeswoman from the Washington-based Ozone Action, warns that the U.S. government’s market-based approach may not produce results.

“We have already seen that non-binding, voluntary commitments don’t work,” she said. “Now, the Clinton Administration should not commit to a legal agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on the one hand and negotiate loopholes and unenforceable provisions on the other.”

Governments attending the 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil signed the climate change convention, an agreement to voluntarily reduce the burning of fossil fuels, which produce such greenhouse gases as carbon dioxide. The aim was to bring national emission levels down to 1990 levels.

The agreement was originally supposed to be binding on all signatory countries, but it was changed to a voluntary accord after then President George Bush refused to sign.

Environmentalists also pointed out at the time that the convention fell far short of the 60 percent cut in global warming emissions that scientists from around the world have warned is the minimum necessary to stabilise global climate.

The trade group that opposes quick action to head off global warming warned Wednesday that the kind of policy annouced by Wirth would eliminate millions of jobs and lead to second-class lifestyles.

“The U.S. economy could lose millions of jobs,” said John Schlaes, executive director of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), which comprises oil, coal, electric, and other energy companies. “In additon, it means higher costs to Americans for everyday necessities.”

But according to Alden Meyer, chair of the U.S. Climate Action Network, the GCC’s position is “beyond the pale” and it is hurting their credibility.

The GCC’s “economic analysis is as bad as their science credibility,” Meyer told reporters. “If they continue to use these kinds of scare tactics, they’re going to be increasinly irrelevant to the discussion.”

Wirth has spoken out in recent months against scientists in the United States who describe global warming as a myth. He has pointed to conclusions made last year by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change that human activity was affecting global climate.

The United States is the largest contributor to global warming, with emissions of 1.409 million metric tons of carbon in 1995, a 4.8 percent increase over 1990 levels.

Not that energy efficiency alone is sufficient to check carbon emissions. History has shown that fuel efficiency for U.S. cars rose from 5.7 kms to the litre to 8.9 kms to the litre between 1969 and 1990 but did not result in a decrease in carbon emissions.

Partly because of the associated savings in cost, the U.S. public drove 2.4 trillion kms, 50 percent more than the 1.6.trillion kms of 1969, pushing fuel consumption up from 242 billion litres of fuel to 273 billion litres.

Citing data from 2,000 weather monitoring stations around the world, scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) say greenhouse gas emissions were the reason that 1995 was the hottest year of the 130 years for which information is available.

The Geneva meeting is a precursor to one in Tokyo late next year. Ministers will meet then for the second conference of parties to the climate change convention. The previous meeting was held in Berlin in early 1995.