Press about the Kyoto Protocol

The Aftermath of Kyoto

Appearing in "Network," May/June 1998
by Daphne Wysham

The December Kyoto climate conference created an historic agreement: industrialized countries agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by, on average, 5.2% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Nevertheless, the Kyoto accord fell far short of achieving the greenhouse gas emissions reductions recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in order to begin to restore balance to the Earth's climate--60% below 1990 levels by 2000. Furthermore, the conditions for U.S. participation in the Treaty will prove, at least, problematic, and, at worst, may so water down the treaty as to make it meaningless.

The U.S., the number one greenhouse gas emitter, contributing over 22% of global emissions, agreed to binding restrictions on its emissions of 7% below 1990 levels. However, the U.S. made this commitment to participate in the Kyoto Protocol with two contingencies: 1) the U.S. and other rich countries are to be allowed to trade emissions credits and debits to meet these reductions; and 2) "meaningful participation" by key developing countries, such as China and India, sought without success by U.S. negotiators at Kyoto, will be sought in future negotiations before the U.S. will enthusiastically embrace the emissions reductions targets.

These contingencies were tabled by U.S. negotiators in response to the Byrd-Hagel Senate Resolution, which passed in June 1997 95-0. This "sense of the Senate resolution," is not legally binding, but it charged negotiators not to reach any agreement at Kyoto that did not include "meaningful participation" by key developing countries. Organized labor joined the oil, gas, chemical, and auto industries in support of the Byrd Resolution, arguing that without such universal participation in the Protocol, jobs would be lost to developing countries.

It is true that China and India will likely surpass the U.S. in greenhouse gas emissions by 2015. But, ironically, China and other developing countries are choosing to develop their economies using fossil fuels such as coal, in part due to financial aid packages which create strong incentives to do so. In fact, the U.S. is the number one underwriter of fossil fuel-driven development in developing countries via the World Bank and other international financial institutions. China is now the number one recipient of World Bank loans, followed by India, also a heavy user of carbon-rich coal, and the U.S. is the number one contributor to the World Bank's coffers. The energy portfolio is the World Bank's largest lending portfolio, of which fossil fuels comprise 78%. In effect, U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing these polluting, carbon-intensive industries to set up shop in developing countries.

Furthermore, the Protocol has compounded the existing perverse incentive for energy-intensive industries to migrate to less developed countries and the economies in transition of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union by allowing them to gain economically from carbon emissions trading with carbon-intensive industries in rich countries. It also allows institutions like the World Bank to profit from carbon trading between countries. Unless modified to prohibit a conflict of interest, the new Protocol would allow these lending institutions to profit both at the front end of fossil fuel investment and at the tail end, by earning cash for "capturing" emissions in developing countries then selling those emissions as "credits" to polluters in rich countries.

Carbon emissions trading, essentially a privatization of the Earth's atmosphere, is now enshrined under the Kyoto Protocol. It allows the "right [of multinational corporations] to pollute," while turning a blind eye to the thousands of communities and ecosystems destroyed by exploitation of fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels--oil, gas, and coal--are among the most popular investments made by international financial institutions. Institutions such as the World Bank and the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation invest a significant percentage of their development dollars in fossil fuels because they are cheaper and less controversial than other forms of energy and are readily turned into hard currency to repay loans. As a result, and despite concerns expressed in the Byrd Resolution, and in Kyoto over the particular hardship that developing countries will suffer in a warmer world, lenders' support for fossil fuels remains strong.

This investment in fossil fuels is continuing unabated against a startling backdrop: Around the world, over 2 billion people, largely the poor living in rural areas in developing countries, cannot meet their basic energy needs for cooking, heating or lighting. Their energy crisis has environmental and social consequences of its own, including deforestation, and soil erosion.

Climate change threatens the very web of life itself, with rapid changes in temperature and moisture in the atmosphere that could have cataclysmic consequences. The forest fires raging in the Amazon, where most of the world's biodiversity is concentrated, the floods in the southeastern U.S., the droughts in the Pacific, the El Nino storms that continue to plague California's coast--consistent with all scientific predictions of climate change-- are a foretaste of stronger, more violent weather to come. Even if we stopped producing greenhouse gases today, the Earth's climate would continue to change rapidly, and would not return to stability for decades or centuries.

At Kyoto, the entire world looked to the U.S., and in particular, to Vice President Al Gore, for leadership on climate change, recognizing that what hangs in the balance, as Gore eloquently wrote in his book by the same name, is the fate of the Earth itself. Unfortunately, Gore's message at Kyoto was hardly commensurate with the passionate intensity he brought to his book. He counseled his negotiators to show flexibility, code for telling them, at the eleventh hour, to stop their brinkmanship and bluffing and begin negotiating in earnest. "Negotiating in earnest" meant that the world's leading consumer of fossil fuels would agree to curtail its emissions by a measure far short of that needed to bring the Earth back into balance.

It is unlikely that Al Gore's lack of leadership in Kyoto will have political consequences. He will invariably tell environmentalists it was the fault of the Byrd Resolution, which could be true. And anti-environmentalists will likely never get the satisfaction of railing against presidential candidate Gore for the severe economic consequences they will suffer under the Kyoto Protocol, as it would be political suicide for Gore to bring the Treaty to the Senate for ratification until key developing countries begin to participate in the Protocol in some fashion. (The same anti-environmentalists who claimed a small carbon tax would destroy the U.S. economy were conspicuously unfazed when OPEC nations, together with Mexico and Nigeria, announced a price hike in March to drive up oil prices by as much as 48%; most newspaper headlines claimed the hike would have no discernable effect on the U.S. economy.

What is Being Done?

Meanwhile, there is a lot that can be done at the grassroots level, with or without Senate ratification of the Protocol. Nationally, there is a real need for groups to counter a growing anti-environmental agenda and disinformation campaign being waged by the fossil fuel industry in state legislatures. Posing as "grassroots" organizations, the fossil fuel lobby is pushing through resolutions at the state level calling for state governments not to participate in the Climate Convention. Environmentalists at the state level, coordinated by the Sierra Club are successfully mounting challenges. Activists are particularly needed in the following states where anti-Kyoto resolutions have passed or are expected to pass: Arizona, Ohio, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Georgia, Indiana, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. To get involved call your local Sierra Club chapter. or e-mail: steve.pedery@sfsierra.sierraclub.org.

Internationally, to stop the migration of transnational corporations, exploiting the "right to pollute" in developing countries (with no commensurate obligation to clean up this pollution nor to provide energy for human needs), there is a strong case to be made for developing country participation in the Kyoto Protocol. However, the U.S. must do two things first: 1) it must lead by example with real reductions, not paper reductions via emissions trading, and other schemes that benefit big industries; 2) it must stop fueling climate change in developing countries and "decarbonize" development aid.

For more information, or to get involved in the activist network on climate change, contact Daphne Wysham at: 202-234-9382, x208, or email her.

Return to top