[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2008]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

______

HON. KEN CALVERT

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, October 8, 1998

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, last December I attended the international
global warming summit in Kyoto, Japan. I took with me to the meeting
information I had gathered at three hearings I convened in my Science
Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment. At those hearings, where
the Subcommittee took testimony from experts in climatology, it became
obvious that there is no clear scientific consensus on which the
Administration can base its claim that human-induced global warming is
harming our planet.
Over the next few days I will submit for the Record portions of
studies that bring to light the weaknesses in the Kyoto Protocol.
Today, I am submitting an Executive Summary of an analysis of the
agreement conducted by the Business Roundtable. The summary gives an
excellent account of the key issues of concern regarding the Protocol,
making clear that the agreement has serious flaws in terms of its
ability to improve the environment without harming the economy:

Executive Summary of the Kyoto Protocol: A Gap Analysis

In an in-depth analysis of an international agreement to
curb greenhouse-gas emissions, The Business Roundtable finds
that the accord, known as the Kyoto Protocol, contains major
gaps that must be filled before its impact on the world's
environment and economy can be evaluated. The Business
Roundtable recognizes that the Protocol is only a first step
toward a comprehensive agreement to reduce emissions, but
urges the Clinton Administration not to sign the Kyoto
Protocol until these gaps have been addressed.
Background: On December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, the
Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
reached an agreement, known as the Kyoto Protocol, that sets
legally binding limits on the man-made emissions of
greenhouse gases from 38 industrialized countries. Global
carbon emissions would continue to increase under the
agreement because it exempts Developing Countries--including
China, India, Mexico, Brazil, and 130 others--from any
commitments to limit their rapidly growing emissions.
Continued growth in energy demand, and thus greenhouse-gas
emissions, by Developing Countries will more than offset the
reductions made by Developed Countries. President Clinton is
expected to sign the Kyoto Protocol later this year, but he
does not intend to submit the agreement to the Senate for its
constitutional role of advice and consent until ``key''
Developing Countries agree to ``participate meaningfully'' in
the effort.

key issues of concern

The targets and timetables would require the United States
to make significant and immediate cuts in energy use. The
Protocol would require the U.S. to reduce emissions 7 percent
below 1990 levels by 2008-2012, an unprecedented 41 percent
reduction in projected emission levels. The process of Senate
ratification and the subsequent lengthy domestic
implementation process post-ratification would leave the U.S.
very little time to make the painful choices regarding energy
use that will be necessary to achieve these reductions. In
addition, because the Protocol sets different targets for
each industrialized country and the target is based on what
is now an eight-year old baseline, the U.S. in effect will
shoulder a disproportionate level of reduction and may be
placed at a competitive disadvantage.
Unless the Developing Countries also commit to emission
reductions, the Protocol is incomplete and will not work. The
Byrd-Hagel Resolution unanimously adopted by the U.S. Senate
in July 1997 states that the U.S. should not be a signatory
to any protocol unless it mandates ``new specific scheduled
commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse-gas emissions for
the Developing Country Parties within the same compliance
period.'' Many Developing Countries are rapidly growing their
economies and will become the largest emitters of greenhouse
gases in the next 15-20 years. Greenhouse gases know no
boundaries, and stabilization of greenhouse-gas
concentrations cannot be achieved without global
participation in a limitation-reduction effort. Moreover,
regulating the emissions of only a handful of countries could
lead to the migration of energy-intensive production--such as
the chemicals, steel, petroleum refining, aluminum and mining
industries--from the industrialized countries to the growing
Developing Countries.
Certain carbon ``sinks'' may be used to offset emission
reductions, but the Protocol does not establish how sinks
will be calculated. Carbon sinks, a natural system that
absorbs carbon dioxide, have tremendous potential as a means
of reducing emissions, but too much is currently unknown to
make a fair determination. It is unclear how sinks might help
the U.S. reach its emission-reduction commitment and, though
the Parties to the Convention will work to develop rules and
guidelines for sinks in Buenos Aires, the rules cannot be
adopted until after the Protocol enters into force.
The Protocol Contains no mechanisms for compliance and
enforcement.
Simply put, it would be inappropriate for any country to
ratify a legally binding international agreeement which lacks
compliance guidelines and enforcement mechanisms. The
Protocol outlines a system of domestic monitoring with
oversight by international review teams, but what constitutes
compliance and who judges it will not be determined until
after the Protocol enters into force. The means of
enforcement--also unknown--is equallly critical, since a
country's noncompliance could give it a competitive advantage
over the U.S., and eviscerate the agreement's environmental
goals.
The Protocol includes flexible, market-based mechanisms to
achieve emission reductions, but it does not establish how
these mechanisms would work and to what extent they could be
used. The U.S. intends to rely heavily on market-based
mechansims to find the most efficient and cost-effective ways
to reduce emissions. But until the rules and regulations are
established it is uncertain how effective these mechanisms
will be and to what extent they can be used by companies.
Many countries are resisting these market-based mechanisms
and their reluctance may hinder the development of adequate
free-market guidelines. The absence of many countries from
the marketplace, and the possible limitations and
restrictions on the marketplace, could render these
mechanisms useless or of little value.
The Protocol leaves the door open for the imposition of
mandatory policies and measures to meet commitments. Just as
the U.S. favors flexible market mechanisms, the European
Union and many Developing Countries favor harmonized,
mandatory ``command-and-control'' policies and measures--such
as carbon taxes and CAFE standards--to meet commitments, and
they will have numerous opportunities to seek adoption of
these policies.
Finally, the procedures for ratification of, and amendment
to, the Kyoto Protocol make it difficult to remedy before it
enter into force. The Protocol may not be amended, nor can
rules and guidelines be adopted, until after the Protocol
enters, into force. The Clinton Administration is now
considering the negotiation of a separate or supplemental
protocol to attain necessary additional commitments, but this
approach would open all issues to further negotiation.
The Business Roundtable believes that the Congress and the
American people cannot evaluate the Kyoto Protocol until the
Administration sets out a plan as to how it intends to meet
the targets of the Protocol. To place the magnitude of the
U.S. reduction commitments in perspective, it is the
equivalent of having to eliminate all current emissions for
either the U.S. transportation sector, or the utilities
sector (residential and commerical sources), or industry. The
Administration needs to detail how targets in the Protocol
will be met, and how the burden will be distributed among the
various sectors of the economy.
The Business Roundtable feels it is imperative that a
public dialogue take place on the major issues highlighted in
our Gap Analysis before the Protocol becomes the law of the
land and government agencies begin to write regulations.

____________________