Kyoto Accord Or Not, "Warming"
Plan Facing A Host Of Problems

BONN, Germany — The so-called "Kyoto Accord" on "global warming" reached last winter in Japan occassioned much high-toned talk and posturing for the cameras, but the nitty gritty is already causing friction.

A recent U.N. conference on combating "warming" failed after a two-week session to resolve major disputes over how to impose the cuts in "greenhouse gas" pollution agreed to in the worldwide treaty.

The conference's main action was to order a study on how forests help absorb the emissions, which are blamed for global warming, conference executive secretary Michael Zammit Cutajar said.

Countries can plant forests to earn leeway for their pollution quotas that were set in the December accord. The study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will help determine how much leeway.

Still hotly debated is to what extent industrialized nations can trade their emissions quotas among themselves, Cutajar said.

The officials from 150 nations meeting in Bonn had hoped to pave the way for agreements on quota flexibility before the next high-level meeting in Buenos Aires, Brazil, Nov. 2-13.

But Cutajar said that now seemed unlikely.

Quota trading allows one country to fall short of meeting its cutback target by purchasing quota credits from another that more than meets its target. The December accord also allows countries to earn quota credits by financing pollution-reduction programs in a developing country.

The United States, under pressure from U.S. industry, has been pushing for wide flexibility in quota trading. But environmental activist groups and the 15-nation European Union favor a strict limit on the trades, arguing each country should focus on cutting emissions at home even if that is more expensive.

The December accord committed nations for the first time to roll back emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and five other gases to pre-1990 levels.

It called for the United States to reduce greenhouse gases to seven percent below what they were in 1990. The European Union would cut by eight percent, Japan by six percent. The reductions would have to be attained between 2008 and 2012.

No country has ratified the Kyoto treaty yet, and U.S. ratification, which was never a sure thing, is looking more and more dicey all the time.

Six months after proclaiming victory in Kyoto, President Bill Clinton is facing stiff resistance to his global warming proposal not only in Congress, but also from European allies — and now even from the environmental activists he so blatantly courted.

Clinton's problems in selling the agreement surfaced on two fronts: at the negotiations in Germany on details of the proposed treaty and during budget battles on Capitol Hill.

Some activists complained that the entire Kyoto treaty might be in jeopardy.

In the negotiations in Bonn, the U.S. delegation was criticized sharply by European delegates as well as activists observing the talks. At issue was the scope of an emissions trading scheme the administration considers essential to holding down compliance costs to U.S. industry.

Meanwhile, a Senate committee reinforced U.S. lawmakers' reluctance to embrace the administration's global warming plan by slashing nearly $200 million that the White House had sought as part of its climate initiative.

Clinton wanted the additional money to expand energy efficiency programs and research into renewable energy such as wind and solar technology. The White House considers such programs essential as an early start to wean the country away from heavy reliance on fossil fuels and, thereby, reduce the heat-trapping carbon gas emissions into the atmosphere that many scientists believe are contributing to a gradual warming on the Earth.

In withholding the funds, the Senate Appropriations Committee said it was not convinced of "the existence, extent or scope of global climate change" and that it considered proposals to cut carbon emissions as outlined in Kyoto "inappropriate" given the information at hand.

Both the congressional actions and the rebuke from European allies and many environmental activists at the Bonn talks were seen as further evidence of the difficulties the White House will have in translating the call-to-arms that came out of Kyoto into actual policy.

Critics, led by the fossil fuel industry, have argued such cuts would devastate the economy by forcing dramatically higher energy costs. But the administration has argued that costs could be substantially reduced by allowing U.S. companies to buy emission credits from other countries.

The 10-day conference in Bonn was aimed at, among other things, starting to examine details of how that trading program would work. The U.S. delegation proposed a system with few restrictions on the amount of trading.

Activists, echoing views by the European delegates, called the unrestricted trading a slap at the Kyoto agreement.

"The United States has suddenly put the world on notice that it's retreating from the commitments it made in Kyoto," complained Phil Clapp of the Washington-based National Environmental Trust and an observer at the Bonn talks.

Critics in the Congressional hearings also cut the agreement no slack, though from the opposite perspective.

The scheme would mean higher electric bills for thousands of northwest Missouri utility customers, said the president and CEO of St. Joseph Light & Power Co.

Terry Steinbecker told the House Small Business Committee that bills would rise by an estimated 41 percent. That's because his 61,000-customer company would have to replace coal-fired generation with natural gas under the agreement.

"We're showing that our total energy supply cost would rise by 150 percent," said Steinbecker, who also spoke for the Edison Electric Institute, a group of more than 200 investor-owned electric utilities and affiliates.

The global warming debate pits the Clinton administration against Republicans — and many Democrats — who say it would stunt economic growth in the United States. Opponents argue the pact's failure to cap emissions by countries such as China and India would put U.S. trade at a big disadvantage.

Like other foes of the accord, Steinbecker is skeptical of the so-called "science" behind global warming: "I personally believe the problem is not as pronounced as is being represented by the administration," he said. "There's enough debate that we should not be going ahead with such a massive program with these types of economic impact."

The Kyoto agreement requires action only by the Senate, not by the House, but various House panels have conducted hearings on it.

"Small and medium businesses should not be asked to pay an unfair share of the burden of reducing global warming," said Rep. Nydia Velasquez of New York, the panel's ranking Democrat. "I would, however, caution everyone that a solution must be found to the problem of greenhouse gases. We cannot simply criticize the protocol without offering solutions."

Steinbecker said that, by his calculations, a fast food store served by his utility would see its electric bill grow by more than $17,700 to $46,600 annually as a result of the treaty. He estimated a St. Joseph supermarket might see its annual bill grow from $55,000 yearly to $87,300 each year.

And he was critical of White House economic adviser Janet Yellin, who said the administration itself has not tried to figure how much fuel costs would rise at the gasoline pump if the pact is implemented without certain provisions to offset the cost.

Those provisions — the committee's chairman, Rep. Jim Talent, R-Mo., called them "sweeteners" — are fiscal incentives for energy-saving technology and the creation of a system for trading emissions "permits" among companies and countries.

"I'm simply flabbergasted that there is no estimate from the (White House Council of Economic Advisers) on what the cost would be," Talent said. "I don't see how we can possibly credit any ultimate conclusion when there was no estimate as to the basic premise."

Yellin acknowledged she had seen estimates from other economists showing the price of fuel rising by as much as 25 cents a gallon "if this were implemented in a completely dumb manner."

But with the "sweeteners" or incentives, as Yellin called them, the White House calculates the cost increase at four cents to six cents more per gallon.

Yellin also bore the brunt of lawmakers' anger over news reports that the Environmental Protection Agency intends to implement the accord before the Senate votes on its ratification, which has yet to take place.

Rep. Sue Kelly, R-N.Y., waved a copy of an EPA memo to that effect cited in the stories. "You don't have the May 21 memo?" she asked.

"I personally have never seen such a document," claimed Yellin, who repeatedly assured the committee that the administration would not proceed without Senate approval. "It has not crossed my desk. I'm not aware of this document."