Online NewsHour Forum: Global Climate Treaty -- November 11, 1997

	HEATED DEBATE NOVEMBER 10, 1997

Can the science behind global warming predictions be trusted?

Can an effective program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions be created? The news from last month's U.N. global warming talks in Bonn, Germany, was what did not happen -- a consensus on how to reduce the planet's greenhouse gas emissions.
The U.S. position was a main cause of the stalemate. Many U.N. members, including those countries in the European Union, considered the U.S. position too weak to produce significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, which scientists believe cause global warming.
Again, the American position will be critical to the success of the upcoming U.N. global warming conference in Kyoto, Japan this December. Even though the U.S. represents only four percent of the world's population, it accounts for 25 percent of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions.
The U.S. proposal calls for:

a return to greenhouse gases emissions to 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012, and for reducing emissions below 1990 levels in the following five years. (This is a step back from the limits the U.S. had voluntarily agreed to in 1992 at a Rio de Janeiro conference. At the time, America said it would return to 1990 levels by the year 2000.)
the creation of a $5 billion package of tax cuts and R&D funds to encourage development of energy efficient technology.
the inclusion of developing countries in any treaty drafted in Kyoto. (This may be the only position President Clinton could take, considering that the Senate earlier voted 95-0 in July to require any global climate treaty to include developing countries.)
An international trading system of emission credits. Factories, power plants and other emitters of greenhouse gases could purchase "credits" from those firms that emit less than their limits. Such a system would create an economic incentive for companies to emit less.

President Clinton called the plan "sound and sensible" when he announced the U.S. position at a speech at The National Geographic Society in Washington.
He also said:

This plan plays to our strengths -- innovation, creativity, entrepreneurship. Our companies already are showing the way to develop tremendous technologies and implementing common sense conservation solutions.

The Clinton proposal has drawn criticism from business groups who fear that efforts to reduce greenhouse gases will be too costly. For example, The Global Climate Information Project, a group representing a number of business associations, has run ads saying a comprehensive global climate treaty could increase the cost of gallon of gas by 50 cents.
The U.S. has received some of the sharpest criticism from some environmental groups and allies. In contrast to the U.S. position, the European Union has called for a decrease in emissions 15 percent below 1990 levels by 2010; Japan's plan includes a five percent decrease by 2012.
"It's simply not good enough," European Union spokesman Peter Jorgensen told The Washington Post when asked about the U.S. position. "There must be something better coming from the White House if the United States wants to face up to its global responsibilities."
And a commentator in The Sydney Morning Herald said: "Mr. Clinton's proposals to return carbon dioxide levels to 1990 levels by 2013 are a slap in the face for more than 140 countries which support reductions from the turn of the (20th) century."
Our forum asks: Are the President's proposed limits on greenhouse gases too weak or too costly? Should developing countries be included in any global climate treaty? What if no consensus is reached in Kyoto? Can an international trading system of emissions credits reduce greenhouse emissions?
Your questions are answered by Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund, Carl Pope of the Sierra Club and Karen Karrigen, a spokeswomen for the Global Climate Information Project and President of the Small Business Survival Committee.

Should there be a tax on gas-guzzling vehicles?

Could nuclear power reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions?

Can a system of emissions credits reduce America's production of greenhouse gases?

Should developing countries be included in a global climate treaty?

Viewer comments

NewsHour Coverage
October 22, 1997:
A discussion of President Clinton's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

June 25, 1997:
President Clinton is backing the EPA's push for tougher air quality standards, but critics say they're too costly.

February 18, 1997:
The federal Environmental Protection Agency has proposed new clean air standardsthat have been criticized by some industry, state and local officials.

March 6, 1997:
The fastest rise in temperature for perhaps ten thousand years is having a dramatic effect on the brittle ecosystem of Antarctica.

January 4, 1996
British meteorologists report that the Earth's surface temperature was higher than the average in 1995.

Browse the NewsHour's coverage of science and the environment.

OUTSIDE LINKS:

EPA Web site on global warming

Environmental Defense Fund

REGIONS TOPICS RECENT PROGRAMS ABOUT US FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS / FEEDS:

Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.

PBS Online Privacy Policy

Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.

Can the science behind global warming predictions be trusted? Can an effective program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions be created?	The news from last month's U.N. global warming talks in Bonn, Germany, was what did not happen -- a consensus on how to reduce the planet's greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. position was a main cause of the stalemate. Many U.N. members, including those countries in the European Union, considered the U.S. position too weak to produce significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, which scientists believe cause global warming. Again, the American position will be critical to the success of the upcoming U.N. global warming conference in Kyoto, Japan this December. Even though the U.S. represents only four percent of the world's population, it accounts for 25 percent of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. proposal calls for: a return to greenhouse gases emissions to 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012, and for reducing emissions below 1990 levels in the following five years. (This is a step back from the limits the U.S. had voluntarily agreed to in 1992 at a Rio de Janeiro conference. At the time, America said it would return to 1990 levels by the year 2000.) the creation of a $5 billion package of tax cuts and R&D funds to encourage development of energy efficient technology. the inclusion of developing countries in any treaty drafted in Kyoto. (This may be the only position President Clinton could take, considering that the Senate earlier voted 95-0 in July to require any global climate treaty to include developing countries.) An international trading system of emission credits. Factories, power plants and other emitters of greenhouse gases could purchase "credits" from those firms that emit less than their limits. Such a system would create an economic incentive for companies to emit less. President Clinton called the plan "sound and sensible" when he announced the U.S. position at a speech at The National Geographic Society in Washington. He also said: This plan plays to our strengths -- innovation, creativity, entrepreneurship. Our companies already are showing the way to develop tremendous technologies and implementing common sense conservation solutions. The Clinton proposal has drawn criticism from business groups who fear that efforts to reduce greenhouse gases will be too costly. For example, The Global Climate Information Project, a group representing a number of business associations, has run ads saying a comprehensive global climate treaty could increase the cost of gallon of gas by 50 cents. The U.S. has received some of the sharpest criticism from some environmental groups and allies. In contrast to the U.S. position, the European Union has called for a decrease in emissions 15 percent below 1990 levels by 2010; Japan's plan includes a five percent decrease by 2012. "It's simply not good enough," European Union spokesman Peter Jorgensen told The Washington Post when asked about the U.S. position. "There must be something better coming from the White House if the United States wants to face up to its global responsibilities." And a commentator in The Sydney Morning Herald said: "Mr. Clinton's proposals to return carbon dioxide levels to 1990 levels by 2013 are a slap in the face for more than 140 countries which support reductions from the turn of the (20th) century." Our forum asks: Are the President's proposed limits on greenhouse gases too weak or too costly? Should developing countries be included in any global climate treaty? What if no consensus is reached in Kyoto? Can an international trading system of emissions credits reduce greenhouse emissions? Your questions are answered by Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund, Carl Pope of the Sierra Club and Karen Karrigen, a spokeswomen for the Global Climate Information Project and President of the Small Business Survival Committee.
Should there be a tax on gas-guzzling vehicles?
Could nuclear power reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions?
Can a system of emissions credits reduce America's production of greenhouse gases?
Should developing countries be included in a global climate treaty?
Viewer comments
NewsHour Coverage October 22, 1997: A discussion of President Clinton's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. June 25, 1997: President Clinton is backing the EPA's push for tougher air quality standards, but critics say they're too costly. February 18, 1997: The federal Environmental Protection Agency has proposed new clean air standardsthat have been criticized by some industry, state and local officials. March 6, 1997: The fastest rise in temperature for perhaps ten thousand years is having a dramatic effect on the brittle ecosystem of Antarctica. January 4, 1996 British meteorologists report that the Earth's surface temperature was higher than the average in 1995. Browse the NewsHour's coverage of science and the environment. OUTSIDE LINKS: EPA Web site on global warming Environmental Defense Fund


Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.

PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.