FW: Climate News from Bonn

Thought you would be interested in Jonathan Lash's report.

Rosie

-----Original Message-----
From: "Jonathan Lash, President" <jlash@wri.org<@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Jonathan+20Lash+2C+20President+22+20+3Cjlash+40wri+2Eorg+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:05 AM
To: Lay, Kenneth
Subject: Climate News from Bonn

The climate news from Bonn this week is very good. Against the odds, and defying expectations, 178 nations have agreed to proceed with implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. The United States alone refused to participate in this remarkable achievement.

Two weeks ago every environmentalist I know was gloomy about the prospects for agreement. Japan, Canada, and Australia had expressed grave misgivings about going forward without the U.S. There were rumblings of doubt from several European nations. But in Bonn the imperative of taking a first step to protect the global climate proved strong enough to persuade negotiators to step back from entrenched positions. Europe agreed to flexibility in the treatment of "sinks" (forests and agricultural soils that absorb CO2), and "trading" (the ability of a nation that falls short of its target to purchase credits from a nation that exceeds its target). Japan, Australia, and Canada agreed to join. With strong leadership from conference chair Jan Pronk the result is a legally binding international agreement that achieves a little less than hoped 4 years ago, but much more than nothing. If it is all it appears to be it is a profoundly important commitment to take a first step.

There are two great ironies about the impact of the U.S. withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.

The first is that the U.S. criticism of the Protocol, and failure to offer any alternative whatsoever, helped the rest of the world to reach agreement. A very senior Japanese official whom I spoke with expressed frustration and confusion that Japan's urgent efforts to stand by the U.S. and open the negotiations to alternatives - despite strong popular support for the Kyoto agreement in Japan - were met with stony silence. "What do they want," this official asked, "Do they know?" U.S. silence foreclosed negotiations and pushed Japan and others toward Europe.

My colleague Tony LaVina, on temporary detail to the Philippine delegation in Bonn, reports that U.S. silence meant that there was no U.S. rhetoric attacking developing countries, and consequently greater willingness by developing countries to be flexible in their approach to the Protocol.

And resentment of the U.S. position helped to unify negotiators. Francois Bayrou, a member of the European Parliament and French presidential candidate, told me that support for the Kyoto Protocol and opposition to the U.S. position is one of the most reliable applause lines in speeches he gives all over Europe.

The second irony is that U.S. isolation will deprive U.S. industries of three things they eagerly sought in any climate agreement:

1. Clear and certain rules that enable companies to make rational decisions on energy related investments that will last 10, 20, 30 or more years. It remains unclear when the U.S. will enact policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or what those policies will be.

2. The ability to purchase credits from other countries. The trading system will be set up under the Protocol for countries that are participating.

3. The ability to receive credits for investment in measures that reduce emissions in developing countries through the "Clean Development Mechanism". The CDM too, will operate under the Protocol, which will be designed by and operated for parties.

It seems obvious that this will raise the costs and reduce flexibility for the U.S. when we decide to make reductions. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page admitted to harboring "a certain fondness for one part of the Kyoto treaty - emissions trading."

An encouraging development in the U.S.: Last week I was invited to testify before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee on a bill that would require the U.S. to develop a long-term strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The first witness was the snowy-haired chairman of the Appropriations Committee and former Majority Leader of the Senate, Robert Byrd, of West Virginia, the author with Senator Stevens of Alaska of the bill under discussion. Senator Byrd has been an effective advocate for his state and its coal industry, and often an opponent of clean air legislation. In 1997, with Senator Hagel of Nebraska, he authored a resolution calling on the U.S. to reject any agreement that failed to impose mandated emissions reductions on developing countries. That resolution has been cited by White House spokespersons as reason for the U.S. to withdraw from the Kyoto process.

Last week Senator Byrd delivered a powerful statement on the urgency of addressing global climate change, saying "make no mistake about it, global climate change is a reality." He said he did not believe his 1997 resolution "should be used as an excuse for the United States to abandon its shared responsibility to help find a solution to the global climate change dilemma." He expressed optimism that the United States is "particularly well positioned with the talent, the wisdom, and the drive" to lead efforts to control global warming.

The U.S. has painted itself into a corner with global consequences. The White House appears to have miscalculated the importance of the issue, the seriousness of our allies, and the capacity of U.S. industry to respond. I think that in the next three years - with the White House, or without it - the United States will take action on climate. That Wall Street Journal editorial I mentioned urged the Administration to propose an emissions cap and trading system. It would be a good start...the sooner the better.