|
|||
Late Breaking News |
|||
| Date: July 23, 1998 3:48 pm Contact: Union of Concerned Scientists Rich Hayes - Press Secretary (202) 332-0900, rhayes@ucsusa.org Susan McDowell - Media Assistant (202) 332-0900, smcdowell@ucsusa.org Eileen Quinn - Communications Director (202) 332-0900, equinn@ucsusa.org |
|||
Latest News Releases
|
US Price Tag To Meet Global Warming Treaty Is A Pittance | ||
| WASHINGTON - July 23 -The United States can meet its obligations under
the Kyoto climate treaty at overall economic savings or a very modest cost, according to a
new report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists. While this conclusion is
expected to echo a soon-to-released Clinton Administration analysis, A Small Price to Pay
shows that the US need not rely on emission cuts in other countries to meet the Kyoto
reduction requirements. "Contrary to the doomsday economic predictions of the fossil fuel industry and its supporters, we can stem global warming without slowing the economy," said Alden Meyer, Director of Government Relations for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "The US can meet the Kyoto target and save consumers money through common sense energy use at home." The Kyoto Protocol requires the United States to cut its emissions of heat-trapping gases 7 percent below 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012. The new report applies this target and the most recent data on emissions to previous independent government, scientific, and private economic studies to determine the cost of action. These studies demonstrate that the US could reduce emissions by as much as 13 percent below 1990 levels by 2010 with net savings. "Tales of economic Armageddon from climate foes have been consistently panned by independent analyses," said Meyer. "The impacts of global warming could be quite costly. This study is further proof that preventive action need not be." The fossil fuel lobby and their supporters in Congress have been quick to label the Kyoto Protocol prohibitively expensive. Such alarmist predictions presume that the nation would cut emissions in costly ways and ignore the many cost-effective policies available to stimulate greater use of energy efficiency and renewable technologies. Critics of action also ignore the potentially large economic costs of global warming, including many impacts that are not easily quantified in dollars. "With insurance against global warming so affordable, it’s time for Congress to act rather than demagogue and delay," said Meyer. ### |
|||
