Oct 22, 1997 The Most Important Date of the Millennium Maybe I don't get it. I watched President Clinton on TV yesterday giving a speech in which he acknowledged the world's problem with greenhouse gases. Isn't that remarkable? Then, didn't I hear him commit the US, as the biggest polluter, to make serious a commitment to reduce greenhouse gases to 1990 levels in 10 to 12 years? Didn't I hear him mention mandatory controls on US emissions, tax breaks for compliance and even the possibility of "pollution credits" issued worldwide and redeemable in another country, allowing the US to buy permits from non-polluting countries because this is a worldwide problem? Isn't that wonderful! Leaving aside for a few moments that it could be better. What if the world just said "Yes, you do it and we'll do it." And they all started reorienting their world domains to CO2 reduction. You know, the situation is analogous to having an old car to sell and asking way more than you think you can get, and someone comes along and makes a good offer. Say yes, take your money and consider it a good deal. Is this a great deal - no. Is it a good deal - I don't know. Is it a do-able deal - I think so, say yes and get started. Take Mr. Clinton up on his offer. The alternative is endless years of scrabbling, trying to reach a compromise position. Each side negotiating from their point of view and perceived best interest. Winners and losers. If we say "Yes" now, then everyone is a winner because the principles are right. I agree with Mr. Clinton when he says let the creativity of the marketplace loose to look for non-polluting energy. We haven't discovered everything. Five hundred years ago, no one knew about electricity. There may be anti-gravity, there may be other ways to release energy from atoms, a few years back, Arthur C. Clarke advised building a tower into space, and then collecting solar energy from the sun and bring it back to Earth while launching space ships by elevator. We really haven't explored geothermal energy, William Reich postulated and apparently demonstrated an energy science doesn't explain, Nikla Telsa was credited with a device in which he stuck something in the ground and got direct current and the list goes on. If there is one overriding necessity for the world to continue towards more, is cheap - possibly free energy. It should be humanities greatest goal, not space or the elimination of war, as desirable as they are, but unlimited energy for everyone - they have it in Star Trek, we can dream about it, let's turn the dream into reality and solve a lot of our problems at once. I fear though that it is a delaying tactic of big business. The problem can't be hidden any longer, therefore acknowledge it - offer an unreasonable solution, let the fight begin. What if the World leaders started to say, "OK" and we gained those two or three years before we made a decision through fractious discussion. If we are not doing enough, it will become self obvious as more data and experience are accumulated and changes can be made. But the two pronged tactic of starting to cut emissions now, to cover the worst case scenario of the pessimist and turning loose the power of profit towards finding of technological or scientific solutions, which is the hope of the optimist, seems to me the best we can hope for. I will be interested in responses. Thomas Lunde Thursday 23 October 1997 Clinton's plan hit from all sides WASHINGTON - U.S. President Bill Clinton looked for middle ground in his plan to battle global warming, but got flak from all sides - business and environmental groups alike - and will face a formidable selling job in Congress and in upcoming climate talks in Japan. >From European diplomats to members of Congress, from environmental leaders to powerful industry groups such as auto makers and the National Association of Manufacturers, the response to Clinton's proposal Wednesday was almost universally negative. "The plan fights a five-alarm fire with a garden hose," the Sierra Club said. "It leaves the United States as the only developed nation dragging its feet," said Phil Clapp, executive director of the Environmental Information Centre. >From a different perspective, but just as harsh, industry lobbyists predicted the proposal, if translated into an internationally binding treaty, would be too costly to U.S. business. They vowed to fight it. "It's a blind commitment to a goal that we don't know what we can meet without severe economic disruption," complained Jerry Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers. But the president's advisers called the initiative, which called for gradual, mandatory controls on heat-trapping greenhouse gases, both bold and innovative. "It's not pie in the sky nor the doomsday rhetoric," said Kathleen McGinty, chairman of the president's Council on Environmental Quality. Even more troublesome to the White House, however, was the hostile reaction from many members of Congress and the cool response from countries that will negotiate a climate treaty in Kyoto, Japan in December. "Something much more substantial will need to come out of the White House if the United States is to face up to its global responsibilities," said Peter Joergensen, environment spokesman for the European Commission. "This doesn't seem to be extremely ambitious." The Europeans are expecting much deeper and earlier reductions in greenhouse gases - mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels - to come out of the Kyoto talks. They have proposed industrial countries cut emissions by 15 per cent below 1990 levels. Clinton said the United States would cap emissions at 1990 levels between 2008-2012. Even that, said McGinty, would mean actual cuts of nearly 30 per cent from what emissions would be expected to be without any additional curbs. Carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, comes mainly from burning coal and oil and the only way to reduce emissions is to use less energy and shift to other fuels. Clinton has rejected an energy tax - the easiest way to reduce energy use - because the public won't accept soaring fuel prices. Instead, the president proposed $5 billion in tax breaks and other incentives to spur energy efficiency and development of new energy technologies before binding international pollution curbs would go into effect. But the money would have to be approved by Congress and the response on Capitol Hill was anything but enthusiastic. "It's another big government boondoggle crafted in secret," New York Republican Rep. Bill Paxton declared, speaking for the Republican majority in the House. Canada has yet to set a target for reducing emissions. Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who was in London on Wednesday to meet British Prime Minister Tony Blair, said Canada was hoping to help broker an agreement that might bring the United States and Europeans closer together heading into the Kyoto meeting. In Ottawa, Natural Resources Minister Ralph Goodale said Canada may consider using taxes to curb greenhouse gas emissions if all other means fail. Goodale rejected the notion of a "carbon tax," which would apply solely to fossil fuels, but said some other form of tax might be needed.
