ALEC SPEWS ANTI-KYOTO
HOT AIR
Introduction
According to the World Meteorological Organization, the five
warmest years on record have occurred since 1997, with 1998 being
the hottest year worldwide since at least 1861.(1)
In response to a May 2001 request from the Bush Administration,
the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the available data and
concluded, “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s
atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures
are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several
decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot
rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a
reflection of natural variability.”(2)
Throughout its report, the Academy affirms the climate
models used by the 2500 member Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, which predict up to a 10.4ºF worldwide average temperature
rise from 1990 to 2100. Although no one would dispute the need
for further research, the scientific community has reached a strong
consensus that global warming exists, is in large part due to
human-controlled emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases,
and may result in “large, abrupt and unwelcome” climate
changes (in the words of the National Academy of Sciences).
The international community has developed agreements to address
the problem of global warming, including the 1992 United Nations
Framework Convention on Global Climate Change (FCCC). Under the
first President Bush, the U.S. signed and ratified the FCCC. However,
after this voluntary agreement failed to significantly reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, a stronger commitment was sought. In
1997, the FCCC’s scope was broadened by the Kyoto Protocol,
which set binding targets and timetables for emission reductions.
The Kyoto Protocol will enter into force when at least 55 countries
representing at least 55 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions
for 1990 sign on. As of September 2003, 117 countries representing
just over 44 percent of 1990 emissions had become parties to the
protocol. After initially signing onto Kyoto, the U.S. (which
was responsible for just over 36 percent of 1990 emissions) decided
to withdraw from the agreement.(3)
Given this federal inaction in the face of what is widely acknowledged
to be a major issue with potentially very serious consequences,
many states have considered and passed legislation related to
global warming. These initiatives include greenhouse gas registries,
carbon sequestration programs, and regulations on carbon dioxide
emissions from power plants and vehicles. Alarmed, the corporate-funded
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) drafted model legislation
entitled “State Responses to Kyoto Climate Change Protocol”
in 1998. The ALEC bill prohibits “the proposal or promulgation
of state regulations intended to reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases, prior to [federal] ratification of the Kyoto climate change
protocol... and enactment of implementing legislation.”
In support of its anti-Kyoto bill, ALEC makes unsubstantiated
(and disproved) claims, including that the Kyoto Protocol unfairly
burdens developed countries and that enactment of Kyoto Protocol
policies would harm the U.S. economy.
Consistent with the FCCC, the Kyoto Protocol obliges all nations
– those considered “developed” and those considered
“developing” – to establish greenhouse gas reduction
programs and to report on their progress. The protocol does require
developed countries to take the lead in the worldwide effort to
reduce emissions to 1990 levels. The rationale for this multi-tiered
approach (a third category, nations in transition, is reserved
for Eastern and Central European nations where the adoption of
market economies was relatively recent) is straightforward. First,
developed countries built their economies with unregulated, substantial
greenhouse gas emissions before the dangers of such practices
were known. Developed countries, with 25 percent of the world’s
population, are responsible for some 75 percent of accumulated
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.(4)
They, in effect, caused the global warming problem everyone faces
today. Second, developed countries have greater access to advanced
technologies and other resources needed to adopt cleaner energy
generation and other industrial practices.
ALEC misrepresents the 1997 Byrd-Hagel resolution (non-binding
U.S. Senate Resolution 98) and comments by former President Clinton
to make it appear as though there is wide agreement that Kyoto
is unfair to developed countries. In reality, the vague wording
of the Senate resolution – which was passed prior to the
conclusion of the Kyoto agreement – led many strong supporters
of Kyoto to vote for it, believing they were sending a signal
that “human-induced global warming as an accepted thesis
with adverse consequences for all is here, and it is real.”(5)
Furthermore, concerns raised regarding the Kyoto Protocol’s
fairness were addressed by including incentives for technology
transfer from developed to developing countries, measures allowing
international trade in emission “credits,” and other
articles promoting cooperation between developed and developing
countries.
ALEC’s other main anti-Kyoto argument, that the protocol
would hurt the U.S. economy, simply isn’t supported by the
facts. Two comprehensive government analyses predicted the economic
impact of the Kyoto Protocol to be minimal or positive. The White
House Council of Economic Advisors stated in 1998 that the cost
of implementing Kyoto policies would be “modest”;
no more than a few tenths of one percent of the projected 2010
gross domestic product.(6)
A more detailed study by five Department of Energy national laboratories
concluded that policies boosting energy efficiency and encouraging
the use of renewable energy would nearly reduce U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2010 while strengthening the economy.(7)
In addition, many non-governmental studies have found that stronger
energy efficiency and renewable energy policies would employ more
people and boost the economy. The Renewable Energy Policy Project
calculated that wind power directly employs 25 percent more people
than coal on a megawatt-hour basis(8)
and that wind power and solar photovoltaics both directly employ
some 40 percent more people than coal on a dollar-cost basis.(9)
Their studies did not take into consideration likely indirect
economic benefits from the expansion of renewable energy industries.
A World Wildlife Fund analysis calculated that implementation
of energy efficiency and renewable energy policies would have
wide-ranging economic benefits on construction, transportation,
manufacturing, agriculture, and other sectors. Relative to 2001,
the study predicts 1.3 million net new jobs, a $400 per household
wage increase and a $43.9 billion (0.4 percent) boost in gross
domestic product by 2020, if clean energy policies are adopted.(10)
This study utilizes a standard economic input/output model that
does take indirect economic effects into consideration. Another
report looking at the ten state Midwest region projected the creation
of more than 200,000 jobs, up to $5.5 billion in additional worker
income and up to $20 billion in increased economic activity in
the Midwest alone by 2020, from the adoption of energy efficiency
and renewable energy policies.(11)
Lastly, renewable energy is already a growing sector in the U.S.
market, unlike hydrocarbon power production. Although U.S. coal
extraction increased by 32 percent from 1980 to 1999, coal industry
jobs decreased by 66 percent over the same period. In contrast,
the U.S. remanufacturing/ recycling industry already employs twice
as many people as the steel industry.(12)
Perhaps due to this wealth of information, ALEC’s anti-Kyoto
Protocol bill has only been introduced in Ohio. Similar ALEC model
legislation to block the regulation of the major greenhouse gas
carbon dioxide (“Conditioning Regulation of Non-Pollutant
Emissions on Science”) has not been introduced anywhere.
However, as pressure mounts on state and federal governments and
greenhouse gas-emitting industries to take action, the effort
to pass such legislation may increase.
back to top
Talking Points
- The U.S. and international scientific community have reached
a strong consensus that global warming exists, is in large part
due to human-controlled emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse
gases, and may result in significant, disruptive, and harmful
climate changes.
- The 2500 member Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
predicts a worldwide average temperature rise of 2.5 to 10.4°F
from 1990 to 2100. Likely results include a loss of arable land,
more violent storms, significant changes in precipitation patterns,
and a rise in global sea levels.
- The international community has developed agreements to address
the problem of global warming, including the 1992 United Nations
Framework Convention on Global Climate Change (FCCC) and its
1997 Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. signed and ratified the FCCC but
withdrew from the Kyoto agreement. International support for
Kyoto is evident from the fact that 113 countries had become
parties to the protocol by August 2003.
- A number of states are attempting to address global warming
through passage of legislation establishing greenhouse gas registries,
carbon sequestration programs, and regulations on carbon dioxide
emissions from power plants and vehicles.
- While the Kyoto Protocol does require developed countries
to take the lead in the worldwide effort to reduce emissions,
it obliges all nations to establish greenhouse gas reduction
programs and to report on their progress. Moreover, concerns
of “unfairness” to developed countries have been
addressed through incentives for technology transfer from developed
to developing countries, measures allowing international trade
in emission “credits,” and other articles promoting
cooperation between developed and developing countries.
- Two comprehensive government analyses predicted the impact
of the Kyoto Protocol on the economy to be minimal or positive.
A number of non-governmental studies have found that stronger
energy efficiency and renewable energy policies would employ
more people and boost the economy. These data indicate that
the cost of implementing policies to meet Kyoto Protocol targets
for greenhouse gas emission reductions would be covered by benefits
from economic growth and increased efficiency.
back to top
Links to Relevant
Bills
Ohio
HCR 6 (House/Senate conference version agreed to Apr.
29, 1999; resolution text not available online)
back to top
Press Clips
back to top |
Sources:
(1) World Meteorological Organization. “WMO
Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 2002.”
Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization, 2003.
World Meteorological Organization. 26 August 2003 <http://www.wmo.ch/web/wcp/wcdmp/statement/pdf/wmo949e.pdf>.
(2) National Research Council Committee on the Science of Climate
Change. “Climate
Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.”
Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001. The National Academies
Press. 26 August 2003 <http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/climatechange.pdf>.
(3) UN Climate Change Secretariat. “A
Guide to the Climate Change Convention and its Kyoto Protocol.”
Bonn, Germany: UNFCCC, 2002. United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change. 26 August 2003 <http://unfccc.int/resource/guideconvkp-p.pdf>.
(4) “Bush
Administration Errs on Kyoto Global Warming Agreement.”
2001. Natural Resources Defense Council. 25 August 2003 <http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/akyotoqa.asp>.
(5) U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-MA), quoted by Natural Resources
Defense Council. “Bush
Administration Errs on Kyoto Global Warming Agreement.”
2001. Natural Resources Defense Council. 25 August 2003 <http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/akyotoqa.asp>.
(6) White
House Council of Economic Advisors (http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/),
quoted by Natural Resources Defense Council. “Bush
Administration Errs on Kyoto Global Warming Agreement.”
2001. Natural Resources Defense Council. 25 August 2003 <http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/akyotoqa.asp>.
(7) Interlaboratory Working Group. “Scenarios
for a Clean Energy Future.” Oak Ridge, TN and Berkeley,
CA: Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, November 2000. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 27 August
2003 <http://www.ornl.gov/ORNL/Energy_Eff/CEF.htm>.
(8) Singh, Virinder, Renewable Energy Policy Project. “Direct
Job Creation from Wind Power.” PowerPoint presentation,
2001. National Wind Coordinating Committee. 26 August 2003 <http://www.nationalwind.org/events/economic/2001/singh.pdf>.
(9) Singh, Virinder and Jeffrey Fehrs. “The
Work that Goes Into Renewable Energy.” Washington, DC:
Renewable Energy Policy Project, November 2001. Renewable Energy
Policy Project. 26 August 2003 <http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/binaries/LABOR_FINAL_REV.pdf>.
(10) Bailie, Alison, Stephen Bernow, William Dougherty, Michael
Lazarus, Sivan Kartha and Marshall Goldberg. “Clean
Energy: Jobs for America’s Future.” World Wildlife
Fund, October 2001. World Wildlife Fund. 26 August 2003 <http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate/clean_energy_jobs.pdf>.
(11) Regional Economics Applications Laboratory for the Environmental
Law and Policy Center. “Job
Jolt: The Economic Impacts of Repowering the Midwest.”
Chicago, IL: Environmental Law and Policy Center, February 2001.
Repowering the Midwest. 10 September 2003 <http://repowermidwest.org/Job%20Jolt/JJfinal.pdf>.
(12) “Saving
the Environment is a Jobs Engine.” Natural Life
Magazine 76 (November/ December 2000). www.life.ca. 26 August
2003 <http://www.life.ca/nl/76/jobs.html>. |
