Nearly everyone agrees Kyoto represents only a first step in trying to tame the warming of the world's climate that is clearly occurring as a result of human industrial activity. Even the United States probably will be dragged kicking and screaming into reducing its CO2 emissions, so the issue now becomes one of scale.

In sitting out Kyoto's implementation, however, the U.S. government has forfeited any claim to leadership on this issue, which is likely to be one of the primary drivers of scientific research and technological innovation during the 21st century.

In a Feb. 17 news conference, President George W. Bush said: "We care about the climate. Obviously, the Kyoto Protocol had been a problem in the past. They thought the treaty made sense; I didn't, and neither did the United States Senate when it rejected the Kyoto concept (by a vote of) 95 to nothing, and so there's an opportunity now to work together to talk about new technologies that will help us both achieve a common objective, which is a better environment for generations to come."

Proponents of the Kyoto protocol saw things differently.

"Unfortunately, what we have seen over the last few years is a decision on the part of the Bush White House to withdraw from the global process by which this crisis is being confronted," said Al Gore, the former vice president, senator from Tennessee and presidential candidate.

"President Bush has instead directed the nation's attention and resources toward false crises while refusing to acknowledge a real crisis that is unfolding right before our eyes," Gore told reporters last Wednesday, citing Social Security and the allegations of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as examples of the false kind.

The validity of Gore's statement aside, some economists think Kyoto asks too much of the United States right now.

"There are two sides to this," said Yale University natural resources economist Robert Mendelsohn. "There's a question about what the world should be doing at every moment in time, because this is a dynamic problem. What you want to be doing in 2100 is not what you want to be doing now."

Mendelsohn said the U.S. negotiators at Kyoto in 1997 had not done a very good job sticking up for American interests. Setting the baseline for CO2 emissions at 1990 levels meant the United States would have to spend $50 or more in 2005 dollars to reduce emissions by one ton of carbon, while the cost for Europe would be only about $5 per ton.

Economically, "there's not a very good case," Mendelsohn told UPI's Climate. "The marginal damage of a ton of carbon today looks like it is causing damages of 5 to 10 dollars. As it accumulates in the atmosphere, future tons are going to create more damage. As the concentrations increase, you will want to be spending more money on abatement."

As Gore noted at his news conference, however, the much-touted globalization of the economy means U.S. companies are going to be required to meet tougher carbon standards, regardless of whether their government signs up for carbon reductions.

"I think Kyoto sends a clear and powerful market signal that will begin a cascading series of changes requiring corporations that do business outside of the United States and Australia to reduce carbon emissions," Gore said, "and once that process begins it will attain an internal dynamic of its own."

Kyoto is small step, he agreed, but was modeled on the 1987 Montreal Protocol to reduce ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere.

"The pattern that was taken from the Montreal Protocol was to do the maximum that was politically feasible and then toughen the requirements," Gore said.

Although Kyoto "works for Europe, it doesn't work for us," Mendelsohn said. "We have to make a gigantic reduction to meet our goal. To go back to 1990 puts us back to a 25 percent cut from today. That's an enormous commitment."

The United States will not even commit to modest CO2 reductions, however. Sens. John McCain, R.-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, D.-Conn., have re-introduced legislation that would impose modest emission curbs. When the Senate voted on the measure in 2003, it lost 55 to 43, and it faces even tougher opposition from a larger Republican majority in 2005.

Last December, a bipartisan report by the National Commission on Energy Strategy called for a mandatory Kyoto-like emissions-trading scheme in the United States for all greenhouse gases to go into effect in 2010.

"Between 2010 and 2019, the target should be set to reflect a 2.4 percent annual reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions per dollar of gross domestic product," the report said.

"To limit possible costs to the economy, the government would sell additional permits at an initial price of $7 per metric ton of CO2-equivalent. The price for additional permits (or the so-called 'safety-valve' price) would increase by 5 percent each year in nominal terms. This annual increase is designed to modestly exceed inflation, resulting in a gradual escalation of the safety-valve price in real terms."

Several studies in Europe indicate tougher standards will drive technological innovation in the area of carbon emissions, reducing the cost of compliance and even creating economic benefits. Great Britain has even promised a reduction far beyond the Kyoto requirements, specifically expecting this kind of technology burst.

In Europe, "the market-based system has gotten off to a great start," Gore said. "It's based on the simple truth that most of us have long recognized - that the best way to solve a problem involves making certain that market forces work with you and not against you."

The European Union, he added, "is unleashing the creativity of the marketplace in allocating euros toward the most efficient ways to reduce carbon emissions."

Climate is a weekly series examining the potential human impact on global climate change, by environmental reporter Dan Whipple.

Related Links
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express