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 Senator Frank H. Murkowski
Republican from Alaska
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
There are many scientific uncertainties surrounding the possibility of climate change resulting from human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, but its potential threat is a credible risk we must responsibly address. However, the Kyoto climate treaty-often offered as the "cure" for climate change-is actually bitter medicine that would weaken our economy and undermine the sustained, long-term effort that could help stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations and protect the global environment.
Even the treaty's most ardent supporters admit that Kyoto will not stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations or result in any measurable difference in the climate. Any emissions reductions achieved by the United States and the 38 other nations subject to Kyoto's limits would be quickly overwhelmed by the explosive growth in emissions from China, India, South Korea, Mexico and the other 130 or so developing nations that are not legally bound by limits in the treaty.
At the same time, the Kyoto treaty would harm the U.S. economy. It would require us to reduce energy use as much as 40 percent below the levels otherwise expected in the year 2010. The Energy Information Administration, an independent arm of the U.S. Department of Energy, predicts that Kyoto could cause gasoline prices to rise by 53 percent and electricity prices by 86 percent over the next decade.
In other words, the Kyoto treaty will impose economic pain without environmental gain. Therefore, it is unlikely to ever be ratified by the Senate.
Administration Actions Spur Congressional Distrust Meanwhile, the Administration's efforts to push this flawed treaty while exploring ways to implement it without Senate ratification has engendered real distrust in Congress and poisoned the discussion that could lead to real solutions. What might those solutions be? Technology, applied globally, over the long term, is a good place to start. I have been joined by 17 of my colleagues in sponsoring bipartisan legislation that would put long-term technology development-rather than unrealistic international regulatory mandates-at the heart of our efforts to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations.
The supporters of this measure, the Energy and Climate Policy Act (S. 882), understand that efforts to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations must be undertaken globally, over the long term. The chemical nature of greenhouse gases, the physical nature of the climate system, the nature of economic growth and other factors make this a marathon effort rather than a sprint.
The time limits in the Kyoto Protocol, on the other hand, are artificial, politically derived, short-term deadlines. They bear no relation to what is best for economic growth or the environment. Moreover, the Kyoto Protocol, in subjecting only some nations to emissions limits, makes distinctions between emissions from different nations. The atmosphere makes no such distinction. This potential problem is global in scope. The solutions we encourage must be global as well.
Realistic Solutions Needed For instance, they oppose emissions-free nuclear energy, which produces 20 percent of our electricity. They oppose emissions-free hydropower, which produces about 11 percent of our electricity. They only seem to support non-hydro renewable energy, which currently produces about 2 percent of our electricity. While there is potential for growth in this area, we would have to completely cover a number of southern states with solar panels, blanket hillsides with windmills, and put a great deal of arable land into the production of biomass if we were to actually do what environmental groups say they want us to do. Ironically, that would not be good for the environment, either.
No single technology or policy prescription can stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations. There is no silver bullet. If we expect to achieve success, we must leverage the power of technology and the marketplace. We will have to expand existing emissions-free technology, including nuclear and hydropower, as well as solar, wind and biomass. We will have to make nuclear and hydro relicensing easier and solve the nuclear waste issue, which is really a political problem rather than a technical one. We will have to promote new technology to trap and store greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere. We will have to assist developing nations with clean coal technology and other energy efficiency improvements.
Finally, we will have to remove existing regulatory barriers to voluntary reductions. The Environmental Protection Agency, through its "new source review" regulations, actually acts as a barrier to the use of new technology. If you want to modify a plant to make it more energy efficient, the EPA makes it difficult. This makes no sense.
Unfortunately, the Kyoto treaty, and the belief that the Clinton-Gore administration is taking steps to implement the treaty in the absence of Senate ratification, is hindering what might otherwise constitute bipartisan cooperation in the areas listed above. This has led many observers to conclude that we will not make progress on the climate issue until this treaty is formally declared dead. From that perspective, perhaps we should hasten that day.
This should not come as any surprise to the Clinton-Gore Administration. The Senate has always been forthright with respect to its concerns about Kyoto, even passing a unanimous resolution of advice urging the President not to sign such a treaty. The Senate has constitutional responsibilities of advice and consent. President Clinton ignored the Senate's advice-so he cannot realistically expect the Senate's consent.
We must also adopt a new realism about our energy options. Unfortunately, many in the Clinton-Gore Administration and most environmental groups are not advancing realistic solutions. Like all of us, they want to advance low-emission power generation and transportation systems, but they oppose the proven, emissions-free sources of energy that are already making the largest contribution to emissions reductions.