  |
||||
Breaking News from America's Progressive Community... Latest Releases
The press releases posted here have been provided to NewsCenter by the one of the many progressive organizations we have selected to participate. If you would like more information about this press release, you should contact the organization directly. |
||||
| NOVEMBER 12, 1998 4:19 PM FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Friends of the Earth * Project Underground * Rainforest Action Network Cindy Baxter, Friends of the Earth Intl, 011-541-446-7575 (mobile) Shannon Wright or Steve Kretzmann , 011-541-413-5079 (mobile) or 011-541-806-1037 Mark Westlund at Rainforest Action Network - 415-398-4404 |
||||
| Oil Industry Dictates US Position At Climate Convention; Secret Document Exposes The Real Reasons Behind U.S. COP4 Objectives | ||||
| BUENOS
AIRES - November 12 - Confidential documents (attached below) from a U.S. business
association reveal that the U.S. objective in the Climate Convention exclusively benefits
the U.S. at the expense of developing countries. Knowing this, U.S. Undersecretary
of State Stuart E. Eizenstat announced to the world's nations gathered at the UN
Convention on Climate Change today that although President Clinton signed the Protocol
today, he will not submit it to Congress for ratification until developing countries
accede to U.S. demands. The U.S. has steadfastly asserted that ratification of the Kyoto Protocol is dependent on commitments by developing countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. A Business Roundtable document found today reveals the corporate agenda behind this U.S. demand. According to this document faxed Tuesday to top Administration and Congressional officials in Buenos Aires and Washington "developing countries must assume binding obligations in the same compliance period as Annex I countries to avoid...significant damage to U.S. trade and competitiveness." The document concedes that European industry is more efficient than US industry, and argues that the only way for US business to maintain its competitive edge is to ensure developing country commitments and allow unrestricted global trading in emissions. The document defends the two top U.S. priorities in Buenos Aires - use of unlimited emissions trading and full developing country participation - as ways that would allow the U.S. to meet "80-90% of its required annual emission reductions" through the purchase of emission permits instead of domestic action. Environmentalists have long criticized unrestricted emissions trading as a way for the U.S. to avoid taking any domestic action to cut its emissions of greenhouse gases while dumping additional pollution on Southern nations. The U.S. is responsible for 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions. However, the document admits that "participation in full global trading actually puts developing countries at a competitive disadvantage" and admits that gaining their participation will not be easy. "The Business Roundtable is a big business mafia effectively driving the U.S. government policy to suit their narrow corporate interests and away from obligations under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse emissions," explained Shannon Wright of Rainforest Action Network. The U.S.-based Business Roundtable is made up of many of the nation's most powerful corporations particularly oil and automobile companies which are benefitting from the country's increasing use of petroleum. In 1996 alone the BRT handed out $11 million to Democrats and in the last two years has funneled $57 into congressional election campaigns. "The US continues to protect the oil industry instead of the climate," said Steve Kretzmann of Project Underground. "Until the U.S. finds the courage to face down the oil lobby, begins the process of reducing domestic consumption of fossil fuels, and stops trying to dump on developing countries, we won't see any progress in these talks. You can't solve climate change without placing restrictions on the source of the problem fossil fuel use." "The U.S. is seeking to blackmail developing countries by holding up ratification of the Kyoto Protocol until they assume binding emission reductions," explained Cindy Baxter of Friends of the Earth. "They do this to protect their corporate sponsors, particularly the powerful oil lobby, and not the climate as they claim." For a copy of the Business Roundtable document contact Friends of the Earth at 011-541-446-7575 OR Mark Westlund at Rainforest Action Network - 415-398-4404 # # # The Business Roundtable November 10, 1998 The Honorable Stuart E. Eizenstat Dear Ambassador Eizenstat: The Business Roundtable study group has just completed an economic study of the Kyoto Protocol examining international trade and competitiveness issues. This study was conducted by Professor James Sweeney of Stanford and Dr. David Montgomery of Charles River Associates. It quantifies a number of issues raised earlier this year in the The Business Roundtable's white paper entitled, "The Kyoto Protocol: A Gap Analysis." The results of the study are detailed in the attachments. The results of the study verify that the major variable in the cost to the United States economy will be the effectiveness of trading greenhouse gas emission credits. The study has not been completely finalized but, I want to bring it to your attention since it underlines the importance of achieving U.S. objectives in Argentina, namely: (1) The importance of not having any limits on emission trading - either the 50% cap limit on trading, advocated by the European countries, or the ?? inclusion developing countries, particularly China and India. The study shows that the benefits of global trading disappear rapidly when there are restrictions or limited participation. (2) We need to define how the system will work. Although governments are need to verify and ensure compliance, we need to insure there is a meaningful role for company to company deals. (3) We need to have a framework that will allow us to evaluate the effectiveness of a trading system. It took five years from the time Congress approved the sulphur dioxide emission trading program until the market started. Greenhouse gas emission trading will be order of magnitude more complex and the sooner we start the higher probability we will have a functioning system by the 2008 - 2012 timeframe. Given the wide range of economic predictions, data from emission trading is needed to forecast the impact on the U.S. economy - a condition of the Bryd-Hagel resolution. The study also concludes that the more restrictions on trading, the more Europe improves its competitive position - which is probably not a surprise to you and your delegation who are veterans in dealing with the EEC. I will provide you a copy of the full report as soon as it becomes available. I f you require further information, please contact Marian Hopkins at the Business Roundtable. She can be reached at 202-872-1260. Sincerely, Robert N. Burt Chairman and CEO FMC Corporation Chairman, Environment Task
Force The Business Roundtable Attachments
2
ATTACHMENT ONE
HIGHLIGHTS -BRT STUDY ECONOMIC STUDY - KYOTO PROTOCOL
Developing Country Participation Limited involvement by developing counties is not sufficient. Developing countries must assume binding obligations in the same compliance period as Annex I countries (those subject to the constraints of the Protocol) to avoid carbon leakage and significant damage to U.S. trade and competitiveness. China and India are critical because they will account for over half of non-Annex I emissions and one quarter of global emissions by 2020.
Emissions Trading Global emission trading has great potential. Costs could be reduced by 75 per cent or more through global trading, but only if the U.S. is able to purchase permits to cover 80 to 90 per cent of its required emission reductions. To achieve this potential, trading must include all developing countries as full participants. If only the Clean Development Mechanism is institute, or if trading does not include China and India or places percentage restrictions on purchases, large competitive distortions will remain. U.S. GDP losses would exceed $60 billion per year from 2010 onward under any scenario except full global trading. Without global trading, the Kyoto Protocol would create permanent disparities in energy costs between Annex I and non-Annex I countries. Investment and growth in chemicals and other energy intensive industries is likely to shift from Annex I countries to non-Annex I countries where energy is less expensive. The U.S., Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are likely to bear the most damaging trade impacts, and Europe is likely to be spared because of the lower energy intensity of European industry. U.S. agriculture is likely to lose world markets to other countries because U.S. agriculture is relatively energy intensive. |
||||