To: tomgray@igc.org
Date: Sat Jan 17, 1998 05:25 am EST
From: CLivingston
EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
MBX: CLivingston@nrdc.org
Subject: US Climate Action Network Citizens' Update
USCAN C I T I Z E N U P D A T E
January 16, 1998
75% OF US VOTERS BACK TREATY
Almost three-quarters of those surveyed on their opinions about the climate change treaty approved in Kyoto,
Japan, in early January said they approve of the pact. In the Harris Poll, 74% percent said they approved of the
treaty, while 21% said they opposed it. Just 55% of those polled said they were aware of the Kyoto
negotiations. Eighteen percent said the treaty was "too strict," 41% said it was "about right" and 31% said it was
"not strict enough." Among partisans, 28% of Republicans said it was too strict, compared to only 8% of
Democrats. The poll, conducted by Louis Harris and Associates, surveyed 1,009 adults from 12/11-15. The
margin of error is +/- 3% (Harris release, 12/17).
REACTIONS TO THE KYOTO PROTOCOL:
"The Senate has clearly misread the American public, which in every survey has expressed an appetite for
decisive action. The Senate's attitude also defines what could be President Clinton's biggest challenge in the new
year- leading the Senate where the public wants to go," (New York Times Editorial 12/22/97). "There are
already rumblings that Senate opponents will push quickly for a resolution declaring their opposition to the treaty.
That would be outrageously irresponsible," (New York Times Editorial 12/12/97). "We still have to press for
meaningful participation by key developing nations. We made a good start on that, and laid down a foundation,
put in place a framework and a negotiating process that will continue in the months ahead on that point. And let's
be clear, as we said from the very beginning we will not submit this agreement for ratification until key developing
nations participate in this effort. This is a global problem that will require a global solution," said Vice President
Gore, ( 12/12/97 Reuters, McQuillan). "Gore said that the administration has ruled out tax increases to meet US
Obligations under the treaty, and that it would soon propose a $5 billion package of tax incentives and research
grants to promote energy efficiency. (New York Times, Broder, 12/12/97).
"I'll tell you what will wreck the economy, is if we continue to have more and more and more extreme weather,
and we have disruption along all of our coasts, and people don't feel that they are secure anymore, because our
generation refused to take responsible action to reduce the pollution of the atmosphere, " said President Clinton,
while stumping for support of the treaty, ( 12/12/97 Reuters, McQuillan). "As if daring President Clinton, Senate
majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., predicted the accord's defeat. `The President should have the strength of
his convictions to submit this treaty as soon as possible for the scrutiny of the United States Senate', Lott said,
(AP, 12/12/97).
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NB), one of the strongest opponents of the treaty said, "There is no way, if the President
signs this, that the vote in the United States Senate will even be close. We will kill this bill." (NTY, 12/12/97,
Bennet).
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) expressed his concerns over the treaty, "I think the Senate will want [the treaty] early
and promptly so as not to allow the administration through rules or regulations to try to implement it," (Wash.
Times, 1/12/97, Godfrey). "It is fundamentally flawed and dead on arrival. If we are to make real progress on the
climate issues, the president should promptly submit the treaty and allow the Senate to kill it so we can start work
on an agreement that can really work," said Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, chairman of the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee (Boston Globe, 12/12/97, McGrory).
"I frankly am going to take him to head on this issue and tell the American people the truth that they are not the
cause of the warming of the Earth, " said potential Republican Presidential candidate Jack Kemp on "Fox News
Sunday" December 27, 1997, "If it was so important to Al Gore, why did he suggest that we're not going to
meet any standards until after he is even projected in his wildest dreams to leave office in 2008?"
"Kyoto is a major milepost in our efforts to reverse damage to the Earth's atmosphere. We are obligated to
continue the momentum generated here, and I look forward to doing so in the coming months in Congress,' Sen.
John Chafee, a Rhode Island Republican, said in a statement," (AP, 12/12/97). "The threat of global warming is
not going to go away simply because the Senate appears unlikely to ratify this agreement," said Chafee, "Some
might equate the lack of a treaty with the lack of a problem. That would be a great mistake in both policy terms
and political terms," (Wash. Times, 1/12/97, Godfrey). In a letter to President Clinton, Senator Robert Byrd
(D-WV) wrote, " [I]t seems clear that we did gain acceptance on a number of important U.S. objectives.
Therefore, I recognize that this is a worthwhile work in progress, and that a durable and effective solution to
global climate protection, one which provides sustained economic growth and environmentally sound
development for all countries, will require perseverance and patience."
"I think this is going to be a long pull, but there will be a good program put together, and this will get ratified,"
said former US Undersecretary of State, and former chief negotiator, Timothy Wirth, "It's not going to be voted
on the Hill for some time, and that's good." " I mean there are a number of people on the Hill who are in
significant denial about the issue of climate overall," said Wirth. He also noted that the same holds true for their
constituencies (12/23/97, AP, Schwied).
"Overall we welcome the agreement as an important step down what is a very long road, " said a spokesman for
Shell International, the world's largest commercial oil company.
AUTOMAKERS ANNOUNCE MORE EFFICIENT CARS:
Announcements made this week by the Big Three US automakers that they would soon offer hybrid-powered
vehicles with higher fuel economy and lower emissions (Greenwire, 1/5, 1/6 and 1/7)have sparked a debate over
whether the federal government should offer more incentives to continue the development of "cleaner" cars.
Washington Post: "If the government would provide some incentives to improve fuel efficiency, we don't doubt
that the manufacturers could make great strides." (All cites 1/8). The editorial board of USA Today believes the
industry's "sudden turn" is due to regulatory pressure, increased competition from foreign automakers offering
more fuel-efficient vehicles, and technological breakthroughs based on some $2.5 billion in research. But the
editorial warns that government "shouldn't fall for automaker demands that taxpayers pick up more of the tab."
USA Today: "The best way to promote green cars is to uphold tough emissions standards. Government can
encourage consumers to buy greener vehicles by raising fuel taxes as Europe and Japan have."
THINGS TO WATCH FOR IN 1998:
TAX / BUDGET PLAN:
The tax/budget package for 1998 will be the first test for the Clinton Administration on its climate change policy.
The tax package currently includes incentives for commercialization of advanced technologies, mainly for
renewables and efficiency technologies. On the efficiency side, there are incentives for highly efficient cars and
light trucks. Reportedly, buyers of vehicles that are two times as efficient as current technology would receive a
$2000/vehicle tax credit and a $4000/vehicle credit for those vehicles that are three times as efficient. A
cogeneration initiative for the industrial sector is also expected as well as tax credits for a set of renewable
technologies. The spending initiatives in the budget are mostly focused on EPA and DOE programs with most of
the money going for efficiency and renewables and a small amount for natural gas programs. Listen carefully to
the President's State of the Union address to hear more or contact the Sustainable Energy Coalition at 315 Circle
Avenue, #2, Takoma Park, MD 20912, kbossong@cais.com, 301-270-2258 to get more involved.
UTILITY DEREGULATION.
"This does not sound like an environmental issue, but it is. The efforts now underway in many state legislatures to
introduce competition into the monopoly-ridden electric power industry may eventually give consumers a wider
range of choices and lower their bills. Equally important, by forcing utilities to be more competitive, deregulation
will encourage more efficient use of fuels like natural gas. That, in turn, could reduce the greenhouse gases that
are believed to be the chief cause of global warming- Mr. Clinton's top environmental priority in 1998. This is a
national issue requiring a Federal focus. Mr. Clinton should get out ahead of it." (NYT, Editorial, 1/2/98)
RESTRUCTURING BILLS:
Representative Hastings (R-WA) is circulating a draft comprehensive restructuring bill that focuses solely on the
Northwest. The bill calls for consumer choice in the region by January 1, 2000. In addition, Representatives
DeFazio (D-OR) and Smith (R-OR) have a more specific draft bill to open the Bonneville Power
Administration's transmission system under FERC's open access rules. Reuters reports that "Congress may tinker
with the electricity market this year but is not expected by most experts to pass legislation to break up utility
monopolies similar to its 1996 move on the communications industry. With no clamor from constituents for
change in electricity service and facings a platter of other issues, few expect Congress to pass a comprehensive
bill to open the more than $200-billion-a-year electric power market to competition. President Clinton has touted
electricity market restructuring as a way to save consumers and the economy billions of dollars, and as a tool to
maker power plants cut emissions from burning coal that contribute to global warming."
ENERGY EFFICIENCY CAN MAKE MONEY, NOT LOSE IT:
"Arguing about how to share the alleged pain of the energy savings required to abate global warming is irrelevant.
Climate protection is actually a lucrative business opportunity disguised an environmental problem. The same
energy efficiencies that reduce global warming are hugely profitable in strictly business terms, without even
ascribing any value to the environmental benefits of squeezing more work out of fossil fuels. Energy efficiency is a
competitive advantage, not a burden, because it's cheaper to save fuel than to buy and waste it, even at today's
low prices. Modern energy-efficient technologies in all sections often yield after-tax returns of upward of 100
percent a year, while providing superior service quality.
True, not every last shred of this waste can be eliminated at a net profit, but there are more than enough profit
opportunities in energy savings to reach ambitious targets for greenhouse-gas reductions while satisfying the most
demanding investors.
The U.S. economy as a whole is only about 2 percent energy efficient compared with what physics permits. Cars
use only one percent of their fuel energy to move the driver. As a nation we waste about $300 billion in energy
every year- more than the defense budget and federal deficit combined. Amory B. Lovins, founder of the Rocky
Mountain Institute.
1997 WARMEST YEAR OF CENTURY:
On January 9, 1998, NOAA reported that 1997 was the warmest year of this century. Including 1997, the top
ten warmest years have all occurred since 1981 and the warmest five years all since 1990. Land and ocean
temperature in 1997 averaged three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit above normal. With the new data factored
in, global temperature warming trends now exceed 1.0 degree per 100 years, with land temperature warming at
a somewhat faster rate. Check out more on this at
http://www.noaa.gov/public-affairs/pr98/jan98/noaa98-1.html
EL NINO CAUSES MAJOR DISRUPTIONS:
El Niņo spread its effect around the world. El Niņo related drought is even blamed for helping to increase the
cost of a cup of coffee, after affecting 1997/98 crops in Africa, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and parts of
South America. Even so, the world had a lucky escape in 1997. The year's El Niņo was predicted to rival that of
1982/83, which caused an estimated US$13 billion in damage. The devastation scorecard on El Niņo 1997 has
not yet been calculated in cash terms, but was less than feared. In 1997, sea surface temperatures in the central
and eastern equatorial Pacific were a huge four to five degrees Celsius (about 10 degrees Fahrenheit) above
average. The severe El Niņo, and global warming by greenhouse gases, produced what Barrie Hunt, El Niņo
programme leader for Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), said
was "an aberration" of a year. The impact of El Niņo is expected to begin to dissipate by mid-1998, when it will
mutate into its sister effect, La Nina, bringing rains and floods.
Please pass these Citizen Updates along to friends and colleagues. Want a free subscription? Contact us at:
US CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK 1200 New York Avenue NW, Suite 400 · Washington, DC 20005 Tel
(202) 289-2419 · Fax (202) 289-1060 · E-mail: uscan@igc.org
Return to Athens/Delphi: David's Pi_ge 
Return to RainForest: David's Page