  |
|
|
|
The Kyoto conference (Dec. 1-10, 1997) on global climate change (GCC) is either going on right now or (if you are reading this late) is over. The newspapers are or were full of stories about it and by day two it was readily apparent that you needed a play book to follow the zigs and zags of the players. The number of information resources on the Web quickly grew beyond one's capacity to read. Whatever was said one day might be modified the next, so keep an open mind. If you've been reading about GCC in the newspapers and magazines (see my articles on July 1997 and Jan 1997 for references to Web links) for the past several years and particularly 1997, you are probably on one side of the argument or the other: we are or are not experiencing GCC. From the news and other coverage of the issue, which often mixes opinion with fact, it is often hard to know which argument is correct. Like it or not, the odds are strongly in favor of those who argue that GCC is occurring. The number of scientists who say it is occurring is far too great for reasonable people to pooh pooh the theory. Despite the argument about whether GCC is occurring or not, the international community has moved on to the question of what should be done about GCC. Hence Kyoto. Deciding what to do is a game of politics. While many environmentalists want tough laws and immediate action, industry has a different view. Nations can't agree either. Most U.S. industry and industry-related groups argue that early action in the United States to reduce emissions that affect GCC would strike a serious economic blow against U.S. industries, would affect consumers' pocketbooks, and would hurt states' revenues. For these reasons, the opponents fight any U.S. international agreements that would require reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. One pre-Kyoto Clinton Administration proposal was to cut greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2010 to the levels (give or take a few percentage points) they were in 1990 and then to hold them at that level. Europeans want an even greater reduction. This could be done, proponents say, by participating in an international system of tradable emission certificates. In such a system, industries would be issued a certificate for, it has been proposed, one ton of carbon dioxide a year. If an industry didn't use its certificate, it could sell it to another industry that wanted to emit more than the one ton its own certificate allowed. A number of problems with this scheme make me, and I'm sure others, wonder about its feasibility although, according to a CNN television special on Dec. 1, an emissions trading system in place for a few years already has produced desired results by making it more costly to buy credits (to pollute more) than to cut emissions (and not have to buy credits). |
|
|
|
