By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 14, 1997; Page A10

In the crudest of terms, the battle over the new global warming treaty pits the politics of gloom -- eventual environmental catastrophe -- against the politics of fear -- the ruin of the U.S. economy. Or at least that may seem like the argument as supporters and opponents of the treaty negotiated in Kyoto last week begin what promises to be a contentious and protracted struggle.

The reality is more complex and subtle. What looms is a lengthy political debate over science and sovereignty, economics and the environment, and America's role as a global leader. It is a debate that may cut across traditional coalitions even as it confronts politicians and the political parties with difficult choices.

For President Clinton and Vice President Gore, the challenge is enormous. They must persuade the country to begin to move aggressively to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases even as they acknowledge they have brought back a treaty flawed by the exclusion of many of the world's biggest future polluters. For Republicans, the challenge is different. They will attempt to sink the treaty on grounds of economics and international sovereignty without reinforcing public perceptions that they are the anti-environment party.

Already it is clear that both sides recognize the dangers they face. Clinton and Gore have emphasized that they will not send the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for ratification, where it faces almost certain defeat right now, unless they gain the cooperation of major developing nations such as China, Mexico and Brazil in the fight to reduce emissions.

The Republican strategy appears to hinge on attacking the shortcomings of the Kyoto process and the details of the agreement without having to take a clear position on whether global warming threatens the planet and, if it does, what they may be prepared to do to reduce that threat.

"The particular question of a global warming treaty is completely undefined in the public mind," said Democratic pollster Geoff Garin. "So the ultimate battle is a battle to define the fight. The proponents will try to define it over environmental concerns. The opponents will have both an economic definition and the idea of internationalism to pick at."

Clinton and Gore will have the bully pulpit of the White House; the treaty's opponents will have millions and millions of dollars for television ads, and each side will attempt to claim a piece of the moral high ground. But it is quite possible that the two sides will be talking past one another in the coming debate. In that sense, this environmental fight may be different than past battles of clean air or clean water legislation.

Administration officials see the issue very much in foreign policy terms -- as the beginning stage of what they expect could be a decade-long series of international negotiations that, step by step, will lead the world's countries to agree on collective action to safeguard the planet. Judged from that perspective, the choice U.S. negotiators at Kyoto had was clear. They could either help broker a flawed deal that nonetheless locked in potentially significant changes and preserved U.S. influence for future negotiations, or walk away from the table, see the entire effort collapse and turn the United States into an outcast in future discussions.

"It's the difference between being an international leader on climate change, with considerable leverage, and being an international outlier who would have had little credibility to keep pushing the process forward," said Gene Sperling, the head of the White House National Economic Council (NEC).

International considerations weighed heavily on administration officials. Before the Kyoto conference, the U.S. position calling for holding emissions to 1990 standards had drawn sharp criticism from America's European allies. "A couple of months ago when a lot of countries doubted we were serious, we couldn't get people to listen to us or talk to us," a senior administration official said. "By Kyoto we were able to be a broker to the agreement, so it's hard to say that showing some commitment doesn't increase your leverage."

Another senior official said the U.S. strategy all along was to see what could be achieved at Kyoto, delay sending the treaty to the Senate for ratification, and attempt to corral the developing countries into the process through later negotiations. "We had in mind this two-step process: Get a good agreement in Kyoto, make clear it was a partial solution and not try for ratification immediately, and then try to get agreement from the developing countries," the official said.

But industry officials and Republican leaders take issue with the administration's contention that what they achieved in Kyoto was a good agreement. "We sacrificed the future well being of the country based on environmental correctness and inconclusive science," House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said in a letter to the president dated Thursday. Saying "the very future of the United States is at stake," Gingrich argued that the costs of the agreement "are an outrage" that could "cripple our economy." He called on Clinton to "safeguard America's interests" and urged him not to sign the treaty until he has consulted further with Congress.

An aide to the speaker argued that for Republicans, opposition to the Kyoto treaty could become a win-win issue politically and predicted widespread GOP opposition to the treaty. Republicans, he said, can argue against the treaty whether or not they see global warming as a serious problem. "If you think it is a problem, this [treaty] won't solve it," he said. "If you don't, it's a crazy treaty."

But an administration official countered that the Republicans may have misjudged just what the coming debate will be about. "As we structured it, they won't have a treaty to go against," he said. "They're following a strategy that doesn't correspond to the situation. To those who care about the environment, we've showed we're prepared to do things, but the president has shown he won't do it in a way to disadvantage the United States."

Industry officials who oppose the treaty argue that the administration is irresponsible to hold the treaty in limbo indefinitely. Backed by a well-financed advertising campaign, these opponents are hoping for a quick kill of the Kyoto agreement. "The longer the administration delays, the larger the economic impact and cost of compliance," said Bill O'Keefe, chairman of the Global Climate Coalition. "What I'm going to do and urge others to do is support a move to get the president to make a quick decision."

At this point, the opposition to the Kyoto agreement includes a powerful amalgam of groups representing business, agriculture and organized labor. But labor leaders sounded uneasy this week about participating in an up-front alliance with industry against the administration. "This is not a situation where people ought to draw lines in the sand," said David Smith, policy director at the AFL-CIO. "We don't think Kyoto was the end of the discussion."

Smith said organized labor wants to help achieve an agreement that protects the environment without "recklessly" damaging the economy. "We're going to continue to work with everybody toward that end."

Countering the arguments of business and industry will be the less-well-funded environmental groups, who believe the treaty at Kyoto represents only a baby step toward a solution to the problem of global warming.

Ann Mesnikoff, associate representative of the Sierra Club, said industry is "either fictionalizing or making up what the implications of this treaty are for the American people." She argued that the United States could reduce emissions "with little or no cost" to the average family -- a position with which industry sharply disagrees.

Republican analysts argue that, if handled properly, the global warming issue need not further damage the party's image on the environment. The power of the environment as a political issue has declined over the past half-dozen years, GOP pollster Jan van Lohizen said. He added that the only people who both see the environment as a major issue and vote on the basis of environmental issues are hard-core Democrats.

"There is very little mileage for a Republican to be strongly pro-environmental," he said. "There is a . . . risk of being anti-environmental." Republicans, he said, should cast themselves between those extremes.

Although the initial stages of the global warming debate will come at the beginning of an election year, it is likely the issue will have a greater effect on the presidential campaign of 2000 than on next year's mid-term elections, largely because Gore became the administration's point man on the issue. Some Republicans believe Gore is driving the administration toward unsound environmental policies in the way they believe first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton pushed the administration into a health care plan that became a political loser. "The Republicans are interested in this not because of the issue itself, but because they see it as a way to get at Gore," said Democrat Garin. "It's dangerous grounds for Republicans, but I think they have some hopes of using it to try to paint Gore as too liberal, too far out of the mainstream."

But van Lohizen offered a word of warning to fellow Republicans on that front. "It can help him win the Democratic primary, but I don't think it can be used against him in the general election," he said. "The public gives [Gore] credit for being sincere."