Converting Kyoto to Welfare

By Henry Lamb

BONN, GERMANY - The Kyoto Protocol looked good enough to accept in 1997, but like a poached egg, too soon removed from the heat, now that it has cracked open, the inside is runny, messy, and not very appealing.

The last minute rush to avoid failure in Kyoto pushed the delegates to accept ambiguous language, words that have little or no meaning, and ideas that are little more than fantasies. Eighteen months of meetings and negotiations have been unable to rekindle the flame to finishing cooking the egg.

Still, they meet, and meet, and the Kyoto Protocol grows less appealing, even to those who accepted it in 1997.

The land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF - in U.N. jargon) provision in Article 2 was added at the very last moment in a midnight session, well past the scheduled hour for adjournment. No one knew then precisely what it meant, but it was accepted anyway. Now that the delegates have had time to consider it, they are poles apart on what they want the provision to mean.

The United States wants crop lands and grassland, as well as trees to be defined as "forestry." All vegetation, and the soil in which it grows, absorbs carbon dioxide. By expanding the definition of "forestry," the U.S. expects to count the carbon reduction caused by absorption into the vegetation as a major part of its overall carbon reduction requirement. A U.S. victory on this single negotiating point could make a significant difference in the amount of fossil fuel which may be used in America. If vegetation is absorbing the carbon dioxide generated by human activity, and it is, it cannot cause global warming. Why should the U.S., or any other country, for that matter, count the carbon dioxide that is absorbed by vegetation as pollution? Obviously, it should not be counted as pollution.

The European Union, and many other nations have a totally different view. It doesn't seem to matter that carbon emissions generated by human activity may be absorbed by vegetation. To them, it is the production of carbon emission from fossil fuel that must be reduced. This position is also advanced by the Climate Action Network (CAN), a coalition of environmental organizations that has participated in every major U.N. environmental conference since 1972.

CAN says that if the U.S. is allowed to subtract the emissions absorbed by vegetation from its emission reduction targets, the U.S. target would change from a 7 percent decrease in emissions, to a 5 percent increase during the 2008 - 2012 commitment period. In other words, according to CAN, America could meet its Protocol mandate and not reduce its energy consumption at all, just by letting the trees and vegetation do its job.

No, no, this will never do. America must be forced to reduce its "luxury consumption." In Buenos Aires last November, just days after hurricane Mitch, a delegate had the audacity to tell the entire conference that America's "luxury emissions" was responsible for the death and devastation in Central America.

CAN believes that America's vegetation is a part of the "global commons," and its capacity to absorb carbon dioxide should be "shared" with the world. While measuring, monitoring, and potentially regulating changes in carbon absorption capacity (read: land use), CAN, and the group of nations that share their view, say that the U.S. definition of forests "must be avoided at all costs."

To give the global warming police an iron-clad grip on American land use, CAN, and the nations for which it speaks, are insisting on direct linkage to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Desertification, and "other relevant U.N. Conventions covering the environment, development, human rights, and International Labor Organizations."

CAN says that implementation of the Kyoto Protocol should address "concerns beyond climate change...." In order for technology transfers to qualify for emissions reduction credit under the Protocol, CAN wants "fossil fuels of all types (including clean coal), nuclear, and large hydro" to be "categorically excluded" from consideration. (They also want all supersonic air travel banned).

Because Africa's emissions are so low, compared to other developing nations such as China, NGOs there are afraid there is little incentive for industry to invest in Africa in pursuit of emissions reduction credits. Consequently, the African branch of CAN is proposing that implementation be designed to "promote socio-economic development" in order to provide infrastructure, transport, agriculture, water management, and sanitation. This scheme would help Africa "meet its sustainable development needs."

The treaty began 10 years ago with the objective to stabilize greenhouse gases at a level that would "prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." No one has yet determined that there is such a level, and certainly not what that level might be. Nevertheless, the treaty, with its Kyoto Protocol, has become an international grab-bag from which NGOs and some nations, hope to extract America's wealth, while forcing Americans to conform to the mandates issued by the United Nations.

Henry Lamb is the Executive Vice President of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), and Chair of Sovereignty International .