Climate-Change Poker: Bush Calls the Kyoto Bluff

Published: May 01, 2001, By Sheila A. Millar Attorney-at-Law, Keller & Heckman, Washington, DC

Days after receiving a letter from EPA Administrator Christine Whitman urging engagement on global climate change, President Bush announced the US would not implement the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The announcement was no surprise. By excluding key developing countries whose emissions likely will dwarf those of other nations in the future, Kyoto reflects failed environmental policy and would harm the US economy. VP Cheney said: “Kyoto was…dead…before we arrived in Washington. All we did was to make it clear that the US would not be bound by it.”

However, converters should not be lulled into thinking that climate change is “off the table.” As more and more scientific data suggests man-made emissions do play a role in climate change, the Administration has had weekly Cabinet-level meetings on the issue to brief Whitman, Cheney, secretary of state Powell, treasury secretary O'Neill, commerce secretary Evans, and energy secretary Abraham.

In 1997 the US Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S.Res. 98) advising President Clinton not to sign the treaty. Negotiations collapsed under the Clinton Administration over a disagreement between the “Umbrella Group,” consisting of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the US, and, at times, Russia, on how to implement the Protocol.

Although Kyoto allows the use of market-based incentives, the EU argued that 50% of all greenhouse gas reductions must come from actual reductions in emissions at home. The Umbrella Group favored the use of technology- and market-based approaches, such as carbon sinks; funding emission reduction projects in developing countries for emission reduction credits at home; and emission trading.

EU officials have condemned the US position, although, ironically, the EU will not achieve its own Kyoto greenhouse gas reduction targets. Yet, the Administration may have underestimated the adverse reaction to its announcement, even from Kyoto Protocol allies.

Umbrella group members also have criticized strongly what is being viewed internationally as a US shift in policy. Even at home, while there was no chance the Senate would ratify the treaty, it recently approved a bipartisan measure to restore $4.5 billion for climate-change programs the Administration had initially cut from the budget.

Business reaction in some quarters has been cool. With growing scientific consensus that climate change is real, many large companies believe a uniform international mechanism is essential, including step-wise reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and continued US participation in an international process.

The Cabinet-level briefings reflect a desire to develop a framework that makes sense both environmentally and economically. In April deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage presented alternative guidelines for a new international agreement on climate change. The guidelines would address US objections to exemptions offered to developing countries; the unfair burden placed on the US to reduce emissions; and the failure to promote new technologies and market-based methods.

While the EU still insists the Kyoto Protocol is the only valid mechanism for achieving a climate-change agreement, it now seems willing to alter the treaty to address US objections.

The Administration is sure to propose market-based approaches that include emissions trading, as well as voluntary greenhouse gas reduction and energy-efficiency programs. Other solutions may involve tax or emission credits for investments in new technology. The Administration deserves credit for acknowledging the untenability of the Kyoto approach, but neither business nor the US government can ignore the issue, as other countries will be implementing greenhouse gas programs.

The US must follow up with credible international proposals that achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gases with minimal harm to the economy.

Sheila A. Millar, a partner with Keller and Heckman LLP, counsels both corporate and association clients. Contact her at 202/434-4143; e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ; web site: PackagingLaw.com.