The Global Climate Treaty signed at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in June 1992 goes into effect this month (March 1994) and becomes binding on the more than fifty nations, including the United States, that have ratified it. It requires them to produce credible action plans to limit year-2000 greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. But will these nations really introduce the kind of drastic measures needed to stabilize emissions of such gases, in particular carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels? Not if they follow the lead of the United States, which has lately stepped back from the more draconian environmental proposals, like a carbon tax.
The White House announced its long-delayed National Action Plan last October, referred to more modestly as the Climate Change Action Plan. For radical environmentalists, it was a big disap- pointment; they had expected the Clinton administration to propose tough mandatory measures to limit CO2 emissions. What they got instead were the same old cliches about global warming as the "greatest threat facing mankind," coupled with a vaguely worded voluntary program which likely will not achieve the goals set by the Treaty. Worse--in their view--the U.S. plan established a precedent for the other signatory nations; they need not feel compelled to exceed the "green" standard set by the United States.
Some activist organizations, such as Public Citizen, did manage lukewarm praise--giving President Clinton "credit for moving the debate from questions about the scientific validity of the global warming theory to what policy steps are appropriate." This "compliment" simply exposed the government's cynical disregard for the underlying science when it doesn't support the desired policy.
More typically, environmentalists were outraged: "This first version of the Action Plan looks global warming squarely in the face and blinks" (Sierra Club), "What started out like a love affair [between greens and the Administration] is now looking more like date rape" (National Wildlife Federation).
It appears that the Clinton Administration has discovered the conflict between environmental ideology and political reality. This is not what most expected when Al Gore and his host of acolytes moved into the White House. Instead of running roughshod over economic considerations in their drive for environmental absolutes, they are swallowing hard and defending the Clinton Plan.
Last year's intense legislative struggle over NAFTA not only split traditional alliances within the Democratic and Republican parties; it also revealed the Clinton-Gore team as unwilling to make a major political investment in marginal environmental issues where they conflict with international trade and economic development. Another straw in the wind: Clinton stepped back from declaring a trade embargo against Norway, as required by US law, when Norway resumed commercial harvesting of the non-endangered minke whale in its coastal waters--in spite of a long-standing moratorium set by the International Whaling Commission.
In contrast, George Bush, anxious to prove himself the "environmental president," decided to show "international leadership" by endorsing the Global Climate Treaty in 1992. The United States was the fourth country to ratify the Treaty, right after Mauritius, the Seychelles, and the Marshall Islands, but until last October ratification by European Community nations was far from certain.
European nations that finally endorsed the Treaty last winter were probably influenced by the voluntary aspects of the Clinton plan. Their finance ministers had already voted down any scheme to impose carbon taxes for fear of damaging their embattled economies. An equally important consideration for their action may have been the fact that the existence of a "global warming threat" has never been scientifically demonstrated.
This lack of evidence for greenhouse warming has not been generally appreciated. Historic temperature records from ground stations around the globe do show a warming between 1900 and 1940-- but 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 a catastrophic future warming. Moreover, contrary to theories and calculations about the atmospheric greenhouse effect, global temperature measurements of high accuracy taken from weather satellites since 1979 have shown no long-term increasing trends whatsoever.
A detailed study of temperature records by U.S. climatologists Thomas Karl and George Kukla further reveals that any warming has only served to raise minimum temperatures--at night and during the winter months. Agriculturists generally agree that such a climate pattern, whether caused by the greenhouse effect or not, would be beneficial for crops and forests by leading to longer growing seasons, fewer frosts, etc.
In view of the lack of scientific support, the Clinton proposal of some fifty voluntary measures makes a certain amount of sense. Included are measures that promote energy efficiency and conservation, renewable energy resources, and mitigation techniques like tree planting to absorb atmospheric CO2. Mr. Clinton probably realized that a mandatory increase in automobile fuel efficiency would be turned down by Congress. And after the defeat of the Btu energy tax last year, a carbon tax would have little chance of passage.
Perhaps also it had finally dawned on the White House that stabilizing the emission of CO2 would not stabilize its amount in the atmosphere; it would merely slow its rate of increase. As is well understood but rarely revealed: To keep CO2 concentration from rising, one would have to cut emissions worldwide by 60 to 80 percent--and that includes China!
Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary defended the voluntary aspects of the Clinton 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 radical environmentalists now succeed in persuading Congress to legislate mandatory policies. Much will depend on whether European govern- ments also opt for voluntary measures. If so, such actions would certainly lend support to Mr. Clinton, whose rejection of strictly ideological positions--on logging, grazing, commercial whaling, among others--has signaled an unexpected moderation of U.S. environmental policy.