Back To Main Page
The 2000 Elections: What's At Stake
White House Committed to "Strong Progress"
View From Captial Hill: Kyoto Is Not The Answer
The Presidential Candidates Sound Off
Americans Support Strong Action On Warming
Debating The Effects On Agriculture
Does Climate Change Cause More Extreme Weather
Advertising Information And Contributors
"Learning to Shop for Utilities" with Martha Hamilton. Online Discussion
NEI Viewpoint Discussion on Global Climate Change with Maureen T. Koetz
By Deb Callahan,
President
League of Conservation Voters
The 2000 elections offer voters a timely opportunity to bridge the gap between the American public and elected officials regarding global warming.
In the 1980s, the environmental community rallied support to address the first major global climate issue, stratospheric ozone depletion. The campaign caught the public's attention, in part, because people could conceptualize a hole in the atmosphere's protective ozone layer and recognize its threat to their health.
Global warming is a tougher issue for people to grasp. Logic would seem to dictate that an incremental warming of the planet would result in incremental damage. Yet, science tells us that the earth was merely a few degrees cooler during the last ice age. Therefore, on a global scale every degree counts.
Lawmakers Out of Touch
Recently, governmental efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, which trap heat in the earth's atmosphere and slowly warm the planet, have all but drawn to a halt. Much of the delay can be directly linked to controversies surrounding the Kyoto Protocol. The Clinton administration has yet to send the treaty to the Senate for ratification because the Senate has clearly stated that it will not accept the Protocol until developing nations, such as China and India, are required to participate in emission reductions.
In the meantime, Congress also has impeded attempts by the Clinton administration to reduce greenhouse gas emissions regardless of the treaty. Appropriations measures this year have abandoned the White House's request for increased funds to combat global warming, and have included controversial language that could be used to hamstring existing programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. With Congress holding back ratification, and in the absence of a grand Clinton administration strategy to push climate change measures through Congress, the fate of the Kyoto Protocol is likely to be decided by the next administration.
A delay in international climate negotiations could also place the future of the treaty directly in the hands of the next President. During climate talks in Bonn, Germany, this past June, the Clinton administration proposed delaying the completion of the Kyoto Protocol until 2001-after the U.S. elections. Postponing the talks would force the next administration to deal with various compliance issues that are the main obstacles to U.S. ratification of the treaty.
With so much at stake, the 2000 elections will be pivotal in determining the course of U.S. climate change policy. A new Senate may be more willing than the current one to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Furthermore, the next President will assume the voice of the United States on climate change issues in the global community.
Our nation is home to less than 5 percent of the world's population, yet we generate more than 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. As the only superpower and the wealthiest nation in the world, we have a practical and moral responsibility to lead the world in reductions.
Industry lobbying groups, which already have spent more than $13 million over the last two years to discredit the treaty, are expected to continue making specious arguments about the science behind global warming and fueling fears that implementing the treaty will wreak havoc on the U.S. economy. While there will always be skeptics of global warming, we must not let the tyranny of a vocal minority frame the debate.
Regardless of who wins, the 2000 elections will provide voters with an important opportunity to set the course of U.S. climate change policy and elevate environmental issues in the national and international arena. By letting our voices be heard at the ballot box, we can elect officials who will see past industry's blatant attempts to distort the facts and delay the treaty, and be brave enough to lead on this issue of global importance.
With the overwhelming support of the scientific community, an increasing number of Americans are recognizing the threats of living on a hotter planet and are unwilling to take the risk of doing nothing. The public is learning the enormous human and economic costs associated with increased droughts, heat waves, floods and hurricanes. At the same time, however, U.S. legislators are falling for the do-nothing rhetoric of industry-funded lobbyists, and are stonewalling efforts to cut global warming gases.