Clinton Backs Broad Plan to Fight Global Warming

President Clinton, concluding an often-fierce debate within his administration, opted Tuesday for an international plan to combat global warming that falls short of stringent proposals advocated by European powers. It gained the grudging support of American environmentalists but is likely to draw fierce opposition from U.S. industry.

Barring last-minute changes, Clinton will announce in Washington today a comprehensive program that would bring about reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases by major industrial nations. Many scientists believe that such gases are responsible for an increase in global temperatures.

Clinton also is expected to propose a $5-billion plan to help convert U.S. coal-fired utility plants to natural gas and to boost American energy efficiency through high-tech projects and the use of such renewable energy resources as solar and wind power.

Administration officials and environmentalists presented an outline of the president’s proposal here in Bonn. In Washington, White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry said that Clinton spoke Tuesday with leaders of industrial nations about the plan, which will form the basis for the U.S. negotiating position at global warming talks here this week and next week.

Participants will try to narrow their differences here before a December meeting in Kyoto, Japan. There, nearly 170 nations will try to reach a binding agreement that would commit them to specific measures to turn back global warming.

But the Clinton administration’s position is so different from that of some other countries that, one U.S. source predicted, many of them would “squeal like pigs” before realizing that they would have to work with it as a basis for compromise.

Specifically, these sources said Clinton would call for industrial nations to commit to reduce by 2008 their emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide to 1990 levels. Because such emissions are expected to rise significantly--by some 13% in the United States--administration officials have argued that this amounts to a significant reduction, even though it would simply stabilize the gases at a recent level.

Then, during a four-year period beginning about 2013, gases would be reduced to 5% below the 1990 level, according to one account. But administration sources said Tuesday evening that it remains uncertain whether such a reduction would be included.

The European Union has called for a 15% reduction by 2010, and Japan has advocated a 5% cut. The Arab oil-producing states, on the other hand, have objected to any such mandatory targets, going so far as to suggest payments to them by industrial countries if the agreement results in lower oil purchases.

The president also is likely to call for establishing an international system in which permission to exceed agreed-upon limits of gases could be traded among nations and companies in a barter arrangement.

The gases, working much like a greenhouse, are believed by many scientists to trap the Earth’s heat in the atmosphere, increasing temperatures. They argue that this warming will elevate sea levels and magnify shifts in weather patterns, bringing extreme drought to some areas and floods to others.

Clinton’s plan provides no specific role for the developing world, which was not included in the original mandate set at a 1992 United Nations environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro.

These nations, among them China and India, have argued that efforts to counter global warming by restricting energy uses could stymie their economic growth.

But the U.S. Senate must approve any treaty that comes out of Kyoto and that will be less likely if it contains no clear role for poorer nations. In today’s speech, Clinton is expected to call on these nations to do their part--without specifying what steps they should take.

Also unclear is whether the Republican-led Congress would approve the president’s $5-billion domestic energy plan, including tax breaks designed to encourage industry to adopt energy-efficient practices and retire outdated manufacturing equipment.

White House and other administration officials said that, even as speech writers were working on the president’s text, details of the program remained uncertain. Clinton’s top aides met into the evening to work on it. Since returning Sunday from South America, Clinton has met with his chief environmental advisor, Kathleen McGinty, and others.

Asked whether Clinton has checked off “all of the boxes” involved in the decision, McCurry said in Washington: “Some of them are still unchecked but most of them are checked.”

On Monday, the U.S. Energy Department reported that in the last year U.S. greenhouse gas emissions had risen 3.4%. McCurry said the increase underscores the president’s belief in “the importance of moving vigorously to address this issue and having a position that really reflects what ought to be a leadership role for the United States in this debate.”

The pressure of reaching a consensus has strained the environmental team and Clinton’s economic advisors, the latter concerned that the cost to the economy of reducing energy use would be too great.

Among environmentalists, the reaction was guarded as they waited to see the plan’s details.

Dan Becker, a Sierra Club expert in Washington, predicted that, if Clinton postpones the initial target date beyond 2010, “we’ll all oppose it.”

Alden Meyer, director of government relations of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that environmentalists hope Clinton’s proposal represents a “minimum ante” and that the United States will improve its offer during the negotiations.

Times staff writer Elizabeth Shogren in Washington contributed to this story.

* CLEAN MACHINE: Energy Department touts a fuel-cell technology that uses gasoline to make electricity. D1