November 13, 1998

U.S. Signs a Pact to Reduce Gases Tied to Warming

---

Related Articles

Argentina Joins Effort to Curb Gases Linked to Global Warming (Nov. 12)

Issue in Depth: Global Warming, Coverage of the Kyoto Conference

Video

Global Warming Talks in Buenos Aires

---

By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr.

ASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration Thursday signed the international agreement to fight global warming, affirming a crucial American role in a long environmental crusade but not raising any hope of Senate approval in the near future.

The signing, which the administration has long promised, reinforces its commitment to the agreement, which calls for sharp cuts in emissions of industrial gases from burning coal, oil, wood and natural gas. But the accord is not legally binding unless the Senate approves it.

Vice President Al Gore said, "Our signing of the protocol underscores our determination to achieve a truly global solution to this global challenge." But he emphasized that much more bargaining lies ahead.

Opponents of the agreement in the United States immediately raised an outcry, but the step was widely applauded in Argentina, where some 150 nations are meeting to debate details of how the accord can be put into effect.

Stuart Eizenstat, the chief U.S. delegate to the talks in Buenos Aires, announced there Thursday morning that the United States would sign the pact, which was negotiated last year in Kyoto, Japan. Peter Burleigh, the acting U.S. representatives to the United Nations, signed it in New York on Thursday afternoon.

But the administration, as expected, will not yet submit the Kyoto Protocol for approval by the Senate, where it faces substantial opposition from critics who say the costs to industry of compliance would damage the economy.

The White House has said all along that the United States would sign the accord before the deadline next March, but would not ratify it unless key American provisos are accepted. Given the pace of the continuing talks, that probably means it will not be approved before the 2000 elections.

Without the participation of the United States, the leading source of the waste industrial gases that scientists say cause global warming, the agreement would collapse. The United States was the 60th nation to sign.

"Kyoto is a landmark achievement, but it is a work in progress and key issues remain outstanding," said Eizenstat, who is the undersecretary of state for economic affairs.

In a telephone interview, he said the signing was intended to strengthen the U.S. negotiating hand, but critics in Congress, echoing the views of their constituents in industries like coal and automobiles, said that it would reduce U.S. leverage instead.

Eizenstat called the announcement a high point in negotiations that otherwise have focused on incremental advances toward putting the complex agreement into force.

"I am not gilding the lily when I say there was near euphoria among delegates here," he said. "They just felt this was a real sign of U.S. leadership. I think there was really a doubt that we were really going to pursue this, with all the opposition in the Senate and in other quarters. The feeling was that perhaps the domestic opposition was so stiff that we were going to back off."

The protocol, which strengthens a global treaty negotiated in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and ratified during the Bush administration, would commit the United States to steep cuts in its emissions of gases like carbon dioxide, which comes from burning fossil fuels.

Mainstream scientists say that rising atmospheric concentrations of these greenhouse gases, warming the earth's surface like an invisible quilt, are threatening to disrupt the planet's climate and to cause potentially grave environmental harm.

Under the agreement, the United States would have to cut its emissions by about 7 percent from the 1990 level over the next 10 to 15 years. Since 1990, emissions have been steadily increasing, making that target even more ambitious.

The conditions that the United States is demanding are meant to hold down the costs of compliance, and to increase the chances that the Senate will eventually approve the agreement.

One U.S. condition is establishing a system of international trading in emissions credits, effectively allowing the United States to buy its way out of meeting goals by paying other countries to reduce their emissions further. Another is persuading developing nations to take a larger role in cutting emissions, encouraging them with financial assistance from developed nations who would take emissions credits in exchange.

Both ideas face strong resistance from some countries that say the first steps must be taken by industrial nations like the United States, which historically has emitted about a quarter of all greenhouse gases.

At the same time, opponents of the treaty led by major energy producers and consumers are continuing to marshal opposition in Congress, arguing that its emissions targets cannot be met without damaging the economy.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a leading proponent of the accord, said in Buenos Aires that signing the protocol "gives us the credibility to be at the table" in the continuing talks.

"That means we can not only make sure it happens, but that it happens in the way that we prefer," he said.

But a Democrat who opposes the protocol, Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, said that "the timing of this signing only encourages countries who refuse to be part of any effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions."

On Wednesday Argentina pledged to limit its emissions, and on Thursday Kazakhstan did the same, but populous countries like China and India, whose emissions are growing quickly, continue to resist accepting formal limitations.

"The president has chosen a risky path both domestically and internationally," said Connie Holms, the chairwoman of the Global Climate Coalition, which represents major industry groups opposed to the treaty. "Clinton has sent the U.S. careening down an endless highway which appears on no maps, has no speed limits, no police patrols, and no exit or entrance ramps."

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R.-Neb., who sponsored a Senate resolution last year that opposed signing the treaty unless certain conditions were met, said the signing "blatantly contradicts the will of the United States Senate" and dared Clinton to submit it to the Senate. A two-thirds majority is required for approval.

"If this treaty is good enough to sign, it's good enough to be submitted to the Senate for an open, honest debate," he said.

Environmental groups praised the signing, but some complained that so far the United States is not doing enough to cut its own greenhouse gas emissions.

"Without a more vigorous commitment to domestic action, U.S. demands for more action by developing countries are like a chain-smoking parent telling his children that smoking is bad for them," said John Adams, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group. He urged the administration to take unilateral steps to cut emissions of carbon dioxide from automobiles, power plants and other sources.