Kyoto Accord Is a Start Along the Right Track

The global warming summit in Kyoto, Japan, produced the most significant multinational agreement ever on the world’s environment, but what it will mean in the end is far from settled. Everyone knew from the beginning that the 166 countries participating could not agree on how to cut emissions of heat-trapping gases. Gains, however, had been expected from the conference, and indeed the framework agreed upon early today by delegates could represent a major step forward in the struggle to mitigate the effects of global warming.

First, nearly all nations at the summit acknowledged that global warming is at least partly caused by the burning of fossil fuels, though most oil and coal industries still maintain that the Earth’s warming is simply part of a natural, cyclical trend. And second, the industrialized nations agreed to target levels for reducing fossil fuel emissions that are far stricter than the United States initially sought.

The final proposal falls about halfway between the original U.S. proposal to cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2012 and a stricter European plan to get such emissions down to 15% below 1990 levels. But none of this means anything until the legislatures of participating nations ratify the treaty.

The fly in the smokestack is the developing nations, which steadfastly refuse to sign any binding reductions. So, fearing that high-polluting export engines like China will batter the U.S. economically if Washington agrees to pollution restrictions, the Senate has said all along that it could not ratify such a treaty. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has been especially adamant against “a flawed climate treaty.” But no treaty ever negotiated has been perfect. The accord is a work in progress. Rather than rejecting it outright, Lott and his colleagues should look to provisions like a “development fund” that would give industrialized nations emission credits for equipping developing nations with environmentally safe technology. The fund would reduce the cost of emission reductions in the United States while encouraging developing nations to grow economically with power sources cleaner than the usual dirty soft-coal plants.

Developing nations have said they will agree to commit to reductions after the developed nations have implemented reductions of their own. Congress and the Clinton administration could speed along this process by helping the developing nations invest in “green” technologies in ways that won’t retard their economic growth.

Would reductions slow American growth? One economic forecast said the Kyoto deal could raise gasoline prices by as much as 50 cents a gallon. But the likelier scenario is that technological advances, such as hybrid electric/gasoline cars, will cushion costs.

For evidence of how far the alarmists can be off, look to the Clean Air Act of 1990, which allowed companies to buy and sell rights to emit the pollutants that cause acid rain. In 1990, industry said the act would cost up to $91 billion a year. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency now estimates that the annual cost for full implementation will be $22 billion. That 75% difference between industry’s fears and current probability should be remembered when the Senate looks at the Kyoto agreement. It isn’t flawless, but it’s a starting point, and a better one than some of the Chicken Littles would have us believe.