Fulfilling predictions that the United Nations summit on global warming will be one of the most difficult summits ever held, delegates have made almost no progress after three days of trying to draft an agreement to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
Among the most fundamental differences yet to be bridged are those between the United States and the European Union, close allies who continue to disagree on such fundamental issues as the kinds of pollutants that need to be included in the treaty and how large a reduction in emissions is necessary.
“We’re in constant contact with the U.S. delegation and we’ll continue to do that to find as much common ground as possible,” said EU delegate Pierre Gramegna of Luxembourg. “It’s sometimes difficult to find it.”
There also has been no discernible progress toward the other major goal the United States is pursuing: a commitment from large developing nations, such as China, to agree to reduce emissions. Although the industrialized world expects to sign a deal at Kyoto to reduce pollution, the developing world says it cannot afford to make promises.
Several U.S. senators visiting Kyoto to monitor progress in the talks said they were unhappy with the lack of a commitment by the developing nations, which eventually could become bigger polluters than the industrialized world. The Senate is threatening to vote against ratifying the treaty if there is not enough cooperation from countries such as China, which is already the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
“We can’t ask our people in the U.S. to accept the burdens associated with reducing greenhouse gases if at the same time developing nations accept no responsibilities,” said Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.).
The lack of progress does not necessarily mean the summit will end in failure, but delegates said they are almost certain that negotiations will go down to the wire. Minister-level heads of the delegations are scheduled to arrive Monday, and the conference ends next Wednesday.
“The EU seems to have a strategy of not offering anything new until their ministers arrive,” a member of the U.S. delegation said.
The only issue on which there is nearly complete agreement is that global warming is a major threat that needs to be addressed.
After decades of research and debate, the scientific community reached a consensus two years ago that the emission of gases such as carbon dioxide from cars and coal plants is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise slowly.
Scientists are less clear on what will happen by the year 2100, when the Earth’s average temperature is predicted to be 3 or 4 degrees warmer than now, but they believe the effects on the planet will be significant and perhaps catastrophic. Ocean levels could rise 20 inches, inundating coastal areas, and tropical diseases could spread to new areas.
While the threat is being taken seriously enough to bring together more than 150 countries for the 10-day summit, economic and political considerations still come first. Even as negotiators were finishing their first day of talks, Vice President Al Gore said in Washington that the U.S. will not accept a treaty at any cost.
“We are perfectly prepared to walk away from an agreement that we don’t think will work,” said Gore, who will speak at the conference Monday.
Part of the reason the treaty faces an uphill battle is that the issues are so complex and predictions are imprecise. Nations can only estimate the rate at which they believe they will pollute the atmosphere in the future, and no one knows for sure how difficult it will be to reach proposed targets for reductions.
Beyond that, no one can say what the cost will be for cleaning up the atmosphere, and the delegations are worried about giving up too much.
The dispute between the U.S. and the EU lies in different interpretations of their proposed emissions cuts.
The U.S. proposal calls for the developed world to reduce average emissions during the period from 2008 to 2012 to emission levels for 1990. The EU seeks a 15 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2010.
While Europe’s proposal sounds much more ambitious and environment-friendly, the United States argues that the details of the proposals are so different that they can’t be compared. In fact, the United States argues that its proposal is equally ambitious: For one thing, it seeks to reduce six greenhouse gases, while the EU proposals address only three.
U.S. officials also note that using the year 1990 as a baseline offers Europe advantages. In that year, eastern Germany was still full of inefficient polluting factories that have since been closed, so Germany’s air already is significantly cleaner than it was.
In contrast, the U.S. economy was in recession in 1990 but has since been booming. It is estimated that if the country continues at its present rate, it will have to reduce emissions 30 percent to reach its proposed target. If Europe were to pursue business as usual, its emissions are predicted to increase about 10 percent.
The Senate has made clear it won’t accept emission targets that will hurt the U.S. economy. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said that to reach its goal, the U.S. will have to raise energy taxes. “That essentially means rationing energy, and that will have a definite effect on our economy and jobs,” he said.
Hagel said the only way he would vote for the treaty would be if all nations agreed to reduce emissions. But in talks with China’s delegation, Hagel and Lieberman said they ran into the same argument they have been making to the president: Cutting emissions means cutting jobs, and therefore China is reluctant to participate.
“We got a very emotional response,” Lieberman said. “They said: `Do you want to keep us poor? Is that what you want?’ “
