Weary Delegates Set Emissions Cuts for Developed Nations

By Kevin Sullivan; Joby Warrick
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, December 11, 1997

KYOTO, JAPAN, DEC. 11 (THURSDAY) -- Exhausted and bitterly divided delegates to the U.N. climate summit reached a historic accord today, agreeing to substantial cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases among industrialized countries but leaving until next year the contentious issue of whether and how the world's poorer nations would participate.

Capping a chaotic 48 hours of nearly nonstop negotiations, delegates from 159 countries worked well into midmorning on their way to adopting a treaty that commits the world's developed countries to unprecedented, binding limits on the pollutants that scientists say are causing a potentially disastrous warming of the Earth's climate.

The treaty, if ratified, will require wealthy nations from North America to Europe to Japan to reduce emissions by 6 to 8 percent below their 1990 levels by 2012. The accord would spur dramatic changes in fossil-fuel-dependent Western countries in what would almost certainly be the most ambitious and most controversial global environmental undertaking in history.

Under the proposal, the United States would cut its emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels, significantly lower than the original U.S. proposal, which was to stabilize emissions at 1990 levels. The European Union would cut its by 8 percent, a little more than half the 15 percent it originally proposed. Japan would cut its emissions by 6 percent as part of the compromise figure worked out by conference delegates.

"This is a modest but significant step forward in what will be a long-term battle to protect the Earth's climate system," said Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent environmental advocacy group. "The alternative -- collapse and gridlock -- would have been a disaster."

Reaction to the pact among environmentalists was generally positive, but mixed. The Sierra Club called it a "narrow victory." Greenpeace spokesman Kalee Kreider supported the plan and said it "means we managed to keep the oil industry from completely derailing the negotiations." But the World Wildlife Fund blasted the agreement as flawed and said it "plays into the hands of" the industries that opposed it.

"This agreement represents unilateral economic disarmament," said William F. O'Keefe, chairman of the Global Climate Coalition, a lobbying group that represents a number of major U.S. industries.

"It is a terrible deal, and the president should not sign it. If he does, business, labor and agriculture will campaign hard and will defeat it." If President Clinton does sign, significant political obstacles could hinder or prevent Senate ratification of the treaty.

{The president pronounced himself pleased with what he called a "truly historic agreement," saying it was "environmentally strong and economically sound. . . . I wish it were a little bit stronger on developing nation participation," he said Wednesday night in New York. "But we opened the way. . . . It is a huge first step, and I did not dream when we first started that we could get this far."}

As delegates worked well into the 11th day of a scheduled 10-day conference, the gathering degenerated into near chaos overnight. Before the final agreement was signed, official interpreters who had worked through the night went home, leaving Russian, Japanese and European delegates often unable to communicate fully with each other on key remaining issues.

The conference dining hall was down to just a few bananas, as hungry and exhausted delegates worked without food or coffee, and the thousands of environmental and industrial activists and journalists covering the event shivered through the wee hours in a press gallery where the heat had apparently been turned off. Movers waiting to assemble a trade show in the convention hall waited for the United Nations to conclude its business and move out.

Against that tense and difficult backdrop, delegates were able to reach final agreement on many key components of the pact -- including the U.S. proposal to include six major greenhouse gases within the established limits, rather than three -- but discussion on many others was postponed by an obviously frustrated conference chairman, Raul A. Estrada-Oyuela of Argentina.

"This will enhance our growth, create new opportunities for technology and create a level playing field for U.S. industry," said Stuart E. Eizenstat, undersecretary of state for economic, business and agricultural affairs, who heads the American delegation. "This is a historic first step."

In a victory for the Clinton administration, the pact includes an endorsement of market-based mechanisms that will encourage innovation and lower the cost of compliance for businesses and consumers. The agreement creates a means by which companies in rich nations can provide technology and money to help cut emissions at power plants and other polluting sites in underdeveloped nations. Administration officials argue that such joint ventures reduce emissions in the poorer nations and act as "a bridge" toward eventually involving them in a more comprehensive program of emissions reductions.

But in a setback for the United States, a decision on many details of programs affecting the more than 130 developing nations at the conference was delayed for at least a year -- until next November's global climate summit in Buenos Aires. The postponement was forced by stubborn opposition from key developing countries, chiefly India and China, which made a last-minute stand against the proposals.

Developing countries also rejected more ambitious calls to curb the growth of their own greenhouse gas emissions. Clinton administration officials had repeatedly called for "meaningful participation by key developing nations" in the treaty, a goal that Eizenstat said the Kyoto conference has not met.

"It appeared almost as if some wanted to block any deal at any cost," Eizenstat said. He said American officials had met six times this year with Chinese officials to argue for the U.S. position but that the Chinese could not be persuaded that emissions cuts would not harm China's economic development or its drive to eradicate poverty.

The failure of developing nations to take stronger action raises serious questions about whether the treaty can win Senate ratification, but in any case it may be years before the Senate gets to consider it. The most contentious issues postponed today will be referred to sub-groups of the conference for study and more debate before being presented next year in Buenos Aires.

Because of strong opposition from key senators, it seems possible Clinton might delay presenting the pact to the Senate until the issue of participation by developing nations is considered again at next year's conference. Opponents of the pact said, however, they will waste no time in attacking an accord they believe would cripple the nation's economy.

Even before the conference session ended here this morning, representatives of steel, coal, oil, automotive and other industries that oppose the treaty lambasted it and dared Clinton to send it to the Senate for consideration. Vice President Gore "came to Kyoto wanting a deal very badly, and America got a very bad deal," declared Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), who said ratification of the pact would mean a loss of U.S. jobs and higher energy costs to consumers.

{In Washington, Gore issued a statement saying the accord "lays a solid foundation for long-term efforts to protect our climate while creating new opportunities for economic growth . . . (but) clearly more work is needed. In particular we will press for meaningful participation by key developing nations. We are confident that can be achieved."

{Clinton also repeated his insistence that developing nations such as China and India ultimately agree to take action too, but expressed satisfaction that the pact "strongly reflects" his views on the use of free-market incentives to promote voluntary reductions by polluters.}

The agreement came together during an overtime round of a fractious conference that brought 2,200 government officials and 8,000 journalists and observers to Kyoto, the ancient Japanese capital. Delegates debated a complex array of issues to a virtual standstill, dashing initial optimism that a compromise could be forged.

A breakthrough in the talks came during a visit Monday to Kyoto by Gore, who instructed U.S. negotiators to take a softer line on emissions targets if other nations would agree to a framework of flexible, market-based implementation programs and on "meaningful participation" by developing countries. European countries responded with their own concessions, and by Wednesday morning delegation leaders were proclaiming that an agreement was within reach.

But hopes for a deal sank late Wednesday when China and India tried to strip from the treaty an emissions-trading arrangement favored by the West. A visibly weary Estrada, the conference chairman, warned the developing countries that they were "about to blow up the whole possibility of a treaty."

"I invite the whole delegation to reflect on the consequences of what you are about to do," he said.

After a short break, negotiators adopted a hastily crafted compromise that allowed the principle of emissions trading to stand while calling for a yearlong study of how such trading should be implemented.

The final details of the package were cobbled together well after daybreak as negotiators raced to beat the clock and retain the rapidly fading goodwill of the delegates, some of whom had not slept in days.

"This seems to be negotiation by exhaustion," complained Mark J. Mwandosya of Tanzania.

Staff writer Peter Baker in New York contributed to this report.