Now that more than 50 nations have ratified the Global Climate Treaty, its provisions will go into effect and become binding in March 1994. But the question remains whether these countries, and the European Union in particular, will introduce the kind of drastic measures needed to meet the treaty's requirements for stabilizing the emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. If so, they would be adopting measures based on scientific inaccuracies, which would hurt business and provide negligible environmental benefit.
Ironically, for a more balanced approach Europe can take a fresh look al the new environmental policy of the United States. Faced with the increasing opposition in the Congress, business and public opinion, the Clinton administration has recently stepped back from many of the more draconian environmental proposals that threatened to do more harm than good.
After much huffing and puffing, the White House brought forth its National Action Plan, it proved to be a great disappointment to environmental activists, who had expected the Clinton Administration to propose stringent mandatory measures to limit CO2 emissions to 1990 levels. What they got instead were brave words about global warming as the “greatest threat facing mankind,” coupled with a mild and vaguely worded voluntary program which may or may not achieve the Global Climate treaty goal.
New Approach
Worse, in their view, the U.S. plan sets a pattern for European nations, which now need be no more “green” than the United States. Indeed, Europe can learn from how the debate in the U.S. has moderated the Clinton-Gore approach.
Has the Clinton administration set a pattern of environmental retrenchment? It certainly looks that way—much to the surprise of those who expected Al Gore and his host of acolytes to override all economic and scientific consideration in their drive for environmental absolutes. Instead, these zealots were asked to swallow hard and defend the Clinton plan.
A plausible explanation for this policy shift is that Al Gore, as Vice President, has found other activities more politically rewarding than pushing for a radical restructuring of the economic system, such as he proposed in his book “Earth in the Balance.” He already carries the science and technology portfolio and is charged with “re- inventing” the U.S. government. Moreover, since his spirited performance in the NAFTA debate against Ross Perot, he has been taking a greater role in foreign policy. In sum, with no need to establish his environmental credentials, Mr. Gore can now reach out to other constituencies for political support.
This is some contrast to former president George Bush who, anxious to prove his green credentials and under pressure from environmental groups and his own EPA chief William Reilly, decide to show “international leadership” by endorsing the Global Climate Treaty at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in June 1992.
European Union nations that have signed on to the Global Climate Treaty may have been encouraged to do so by the mildness of the Clinton plan. EU finance ministers have already rejected any schemes to impose taxes on fuels to reduce carbon dioxide emissions for fear of damaging their embattled economies. It is equally important that they realize there is little, if any, justification for other extreme measures—like mandatory and technically unrealistic energy efficiency standards—to fight a “threat” that cannot be scientifically demonstrated now, and may not even appear in the future.
Despite reams of new and reliable scientific data, this is a point that many have still not grasped. Historic temperature records from ground stations around the globe show warming between 1900 and 1940—before CO2 built up in the atmosphere—followed by a slight cooling until about 1975, at which time a sudden short-lived warming set in. None of these variations are in accord with the computer models which have been used to support predictions of catastrophic future warming. Moreover, contrary to theories and calculations about the atmospheric greenhouse effect, global temperature measurements taken from weather satellites since 1979 have shown no increasing trends.
Given this evidence, the Clinton plan, proposing nearly 50 voluntary measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, is generally sensible. The president really had few alternatives. Mandating much higher mileage efficiencies for cars, by boosting the so-called Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency standards, would involve battles in Congress, which the administration can ill afford. A carbon tax on fuels was completely out of the question after the ignominious defeat of the British Thermal Unit tax in the U.S. Senate.
What was left then were a whole series of actions concentrating on energy efficiency and conservation, not all of them very effective—promoting renewable energy resources, tree planting, etc. Some would require legislative action: For example, a change in tax law so that employer-provided free parking would become taxable, with a cash equivalent to employees who do not use parking.
The administration’s proposals were hailed by John Rowe, president and CEO of the New England Electric System, as “a cost-effective and efficient response to climate change issues. ... We commend the White House for resisting simpler options...which could harm the economy without enhancing the environment.”
Praise for the Plan
Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin also praised the plan for avoiding traditional command-and- control approaches: “Setting a goal and leaving the method of achieving that goal up to industry is the most efficient and cost-effective method.”
Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary said it best, defending the voluntary aspects of the plan: “Voluntary is not a dirty word. ...Voluntary means no huge new bureaucracy. ...Voluntary is an agreement between consenting adults.” But this happy result of using “best efforts” to achieve limits on greenhouse gas emissions could be upset if environmentalists now succeed in persuading Congress to legislate mandatory policies.
Much will depend on whether the Europeans also eschew more radical policies and opt for voluntary measures. If so, such actions would certainly lend support to Mr. Clinton, whose rejection of strictly ideological positions—on commercial whaling, logging, mandatory fuel efficiency standards and other issues—has signaled an unexpected moderation of U.S. environmental policy.