SPECIAL REPORT
Kyoto: the Protocol

There went America's prestige and leadership in the arena of international negotiations. Bill Clinton confidently announced a "bold" program to return America's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2008 - 2012. He said reduction targets beyond his goal (which would require a 34% reduction from current emission levels) were "unrealistic." He said he would accept no treaty that did not require "meaningful participation" from developing countries. He sent Al Gore to Kyoto to demonstrate U.S. leadership, and to "walk away" from a bad deal. Gore announced to the delegates that he had instructed the U.S. negotiators to show increased "flexibility" in their position. In the end, Gore left, the U.S. negotiators crumbled, caved in, sold out, and accepted an incredibly horrible deal.

The U.S. agreed to reduce emissions by 7% below 1990 levels, which is a reduction of more than 40% below current levels - well beyond what Bill Clinton called "unrealistic" two weeks earlier. The only mention of developing countries is a reiteration that no "new commitments" shall be required of them. Where is the "meaningful participation?" Nevertheless, in an effort to spin cow manure into rose petals, the White House is claiming victory in Kyoto.
The U.S. Senate adopted a resolution immediately before the final round of negotiations held in Bonn, Germany in October, which instructed the president to accept no treaty that would seriously impact the American economy, nor which excluded developing nations. During the Bonn negotiations, it was reported that private "consultations" between the UN Secretariat, China, and the United States produced an agreement that the U.S. would sign whatever document was produced in Kyoto, but that the White House would not advance the document to the Senate for ratification until after the elections of 1996, and if necessary, until after the 1998 elections. In the meantime, the administration would begin to implement measures administratively to achieve the objectives of the Protocol.

Apparently, those reports were true. The day after the Kyoto deal was concluded, Energy Secretary Pena was on CNN's Crossfire announcing that the Kyoto Protocol was just a "first step" and the President "would not bother" the Senate with it until after COP IV to be held in Argentina in November, 1998 - after the mid-term elections. Pena's Department of Energy produced studies that predicted major adverse impact across 70% of the economy, affecting 1.7 million jobs - when the President's target was only to reach 1990 emission levels by 2008. The new targets agreed to by the White House will stab deep into the very heart of the American economy. Gasoline prices will now climb by as much as $1 per gallon and household electric bills can be expected to increase by as much as 75 to 80 percent during the work-up to the first budget period.

The only truthful statement to come out of the White House regarding the Kyoto Protocol is that this agreement is simply the first step.

Each subsequent five-year budget period is designed to reduce emissions even further with new targets. In the future, the targets may be set by the Conference of the Parties - with no requirement for Senate ratification. The ultimate objective is to phase out altogether the use of fossil fuels as an energy source.

The phase-out has begun in developed nations. During the phase-out period, China, Mexico, Brazil, Korea, and the rest of the developing world are free to use low-cost fossil fuel to build their economies, while the developed world is being required to develop alternative technology which is to be transferred to the developing world. The UN scheme is to eventually reach a point when all the world has equal prosperity (or equal poverty), dependent upon energy sources under its control.

That the White House would agree to such an outrageous document is beyond comprehension for those who value national sovereignty. America is subjected to a gross disadvantage with the rapidly growing "tiger" economies of Asia and the agricultural competitors to the South. Under the Protocol, energy use in America is subject to whims of the Conference of the Parties to a UN Treaty. Moreover, even as the American economy is strangled by artificial and unnecessary taxes, Americans are expected to pay the "full cost" of implementation for the developing world and provide a "clean development fund" to help developing nations achieve "sustainable development."