Late Breaking News
from America's
Progressive Community

Latest News Releases
NewsCenter

The much anticipated report on the economic impacts of implementing the Kyoto Protocol starkly contrasts recent speeches by both the President and Vice President suggesting the Administration was ready to position the United States to take responsibility for reducing the 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions the U.S. emits each year.

"The Administration's approach is the same one used by northerners during the Civil War who paid poor people to fight for them," remarked John Passacantando, Executive Director of Ozone Action. "We made real commitments to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases. The Administration should be releasing plans for how to make those reductions domestically"

Under the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. committed to reducing emissions 7% below 1990 level by 2008-2012. The scenario favored by the CEA calls for 85% of those reductions to be achieved abroad and simply purchased by the U.S. Using this scenario, the CEA estimates the costs of reducing emissions at $200 per U.S. household or $20 billion per year. The Clinton/Gore approach is insufficient for addressing the threat of global climate change in at least three ways:

1) The plan sacrifices U.S. competitiveness and national security. The world's economies are shifting increasingly towards low-emission, energy efficient technologies. By not reducing emissions at home, U.S. businesses will have less incentive to deploy innovative technologies, falling behind the rest of the world and remaining dependent on foreign oil.

2) The plan is an embarrassment to the U.S. internationally. Developing nations have insisted they will not participate in the Kyoto agreement until they see industrialized countries like the U.S. take steps to reduce their emissions domestically. This plan is a clear indication to China, Brazil and India that we have no intention to reduce emissions at home.

3) The plan will result in cleaner air abroad than at home. U.S. dollars will be used to invest in clean energy and transportation projects in other countries, while dirty power plants and factories in our own cities will continue to pollute our air and negatively impact public health.

A successful emissions reductions plan must call for the U.S. to achieve a substantial majority of our emissions cuts at home. Anything less is both irresponsible and ineffective. "The current proposal reveals a fatal weakness of this Administration. It must never have intended to deliver on the Kyoto promises through domestic action," noted Passacantando.

###