Alan Hecht discussed the evolution of U. S. climate policy, beginning with a review of its history. In the early days of climate policy, from 1960 to 1976, science played a dominant role, with an initial focus on weather modification, climate/weather variability (droughts, floods), and long term trends (initially, concern about climate cooling).
Beginning in the 1980s, policy questions related to climate change came to the fore, driven by concerns regarding adequacy of future food supply, energy policy, cost of policy actions (wide ranging estimates), type of actions (voluntary, individual responsibility, Federally regulated), financing (how to deal with developing countries), North-South issues (sustainable development, partnerships), and politics (certain politicians seized the issue, etc.).
In the 1990s, the policy debate led to several proposed actions. The U. S. resolved its political issues by focusing on a "no regrets" strategy and voluntary actions. International agreement settled on an aim to reduce greenhouse gases by the year 2000 to 1990 levels. Developed countries agreed to some financing for less developed countries to assist in the inventory of greenhouse gases and in mitigation strategies.
The ability of the U. S. to reach its emission reduction goals depends on Congressional funding of the President's Action Plan. The House of Representatives is now taking measures that will have a large impact on current and future carbon emissions, i. e., cutting funding for EPA and DOE programs that improve energy efficiency and development of renewable sources of energy. If the U. S. relies solely on its voluntary action plan, it will fall short of its goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000 by an estimated 95 million metric tons of carbon. Actions proposed by the House will reduce the EPA budget by 33%, eliminate energy-related programs, prohibit new appliance standards, and cut research on energy efficiency and renewable energy. If this effort succeeds, the U. S. will fall further behind in its effort to reduce carbon emissions and will also lose ground in international competitiveness. Reductions of this magnitude will likely hamper the United States' ability to achieve its carbon reduction goals with voluntary programs. New plans, currently under revision, will address options for greenhouse gas reductions after the year 2000.
Within the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), the EPA's Country Studies program has assisted many developing countries with $150 million in grants for carrying out analyses and assessments and for developing products (usually in the form of well-documented reports) for distribution to the international community. The studies also help establish a basis for forming and updating national programs that contain measures for mitigating climate change and facilitating adaptation to climate change as required by the FCCC. Through this program, carbon emissions inventories have been produced in Russia, China, Nepal, Mexico, and dozens of other countries. The initial program is coming to an end but an additional $2 million is budgeted for phase two to assist countries in developing national action plans.
Regarding the science of climate change, there has been a renewed effort to challenge the premise of human-induced climate change. The Marshall Institute and others argue against taking any policy action until the science of climate change is better understood. This suggestion is fundamentally at odds with the "process" oriented approaches of international agreements which depend on taking a suite of actions and continuously making revisions as appropriate. Policy issues should not be abandoned while waiting for more scientific certainty.
The first meeting of the FCCC Conference of the Parties (CoP) in Berlin resulted in an agreement to discuss, on an ad hoc basis, emission reduction after the year 2000. This is an important step which will keep the process and momentum going. The CoP in Berlin also agreed to a pilot program on Joint Implementation (JI). The U. S. Initiative on Joint Implementation (USIJI) relies on Article 4.2 (b) of the FCCC which discusses reducing GHG emission "jointly with other parties." Criteria used by the U. S. for JI projects are:
Under the IJI, the U. S. government acts as a broker and endorser to facilitate private companies' agreements with other governments. At this point, there are no international credits given for JI projects but many companies involved are betting that there will be a credit system of which they will become a part. So far, private U.S. companies have come up with $40 million for eight projects which meet the criteria of USIJI. These projects include an effort in Costa Rica to stabilize and expand forest cover, a project in the Czech Republic for fuel switching for district heating, a rural solar electrification project in Honduras, and an afforestation project in Russia. The central principle of JI is that it is often easier, more cost effective, and achieves the same goal to help a developing country become more efficient and less polluting than to get further reductions in a developed country.
Within the context of the FCCC's Climate Technology Initiative, the U. S. EPA will create international centers to promote regional energy efficiency and renewable energy in order to advance technologies that will reduce GHG emissions.
In terms of current and future actions related to climate change, the U.S. is aiming to:
Support a strong science program
Promote domestic action plan a) executive orders (such as the energy efficiency retrofit of the White House), b) voluntary programs in climate action plan, c) state actions
Shift emphasis of country studies from inventories to national planning
Show leadership in the FCCC, with emphasis on the reporting process
Support broad international social science agenda (population conference, etc.)
Enhance bilateral cooperation to complement and supplement the FCCC effort, with an emphasis on Big Emerging Markets (export promotion, high investment potential, commercial diplomacy with sustainable development objectives)
U.S. Technology Initiative to showcase and demonstrate environmentally friendly technologies that are to everyone's benefit
Support environment-trade linkages, especially efforts in industry to do environmental accounting and eco-efficiency
Promote greening of commercial diplomacy, i.e., activities to promote sustainable development, pollution prevention, and "twinning" of non-environmental and environmental sectors.
Is there enough in this general approach of technology assistance, private sector ventures, technology promotion, and trade, for individual countries to take "no regrets" actions which will, in the end, have a significant impact on GHG emissions? Isn't it in all countries' best interests to do things that make sense for many other reasons without even raising the climate change flag?
A domestic debate is going on within the administration regarding possible effects of actions to reduce climate change on economic growth and jobs. What might be the cost to the U.S. economy of taking action, and when should such action be taken? How much should the federal government regulate action? Will working with industry on an export promotion strategy be effective? The overall U.S. strategy is to look for levers and fulcrums, such as trade policy, for advancing the cause of mitigating climate change. While it was suggested that targeting the pricing of resources such as energy, water, and agricultural products worldwide, in an effort to reduce subsidies and include externalities, would be an effective policy, these actions lack political support at present. More general, "international no-regrets" actions across all economic sectors may be a more viable greenhouse gas reduction strategy in the short run.