By Jennifer Coffey

Nongovernmental organizations say that the United States and other industrialized nations must accelerate the pace of renewable energy production and the adoption of new energy-efficient technologies to meet the climate change goals agreed to recently in Kyoto.

The Kyoto Protocol, if approved by the U.S. Senate, would require the United States to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by the years 2008 to 2012. Other key industrial countries face similar emissions reduction targets that range from 6 to 8 percent below 1990 levels.

Christopher Flavin, senior vice president of research at the Worldwatch Institute, a major environmental group, said that efforts by many developed countries to cut fossil fuel subsides, improve energy efficiency standards, and provide incentives for renewable energy and reforestation are among the modest initiatives that have already begun to slow down the accelerating growth in greenhouse gas emissions.

Flavin said that renewable energy production is expanding at a breakneck speed. For example, wind generation -- the world's fastest growing energy source in the 1990s -- is expanding by 25 percent a year. In contrast, the markets for coal and oil are expanding at only 1 percent a year.

Flavin also pointed out that a new generation of micro-power plants that use small gas turbines and fuel cells to provide electricity and heat for office and residential buildings could make obsolete the coal-fired power plants that generate about one-third of today's carbon emissions.

"These exciting developments suggest that a strong Kyoto Protocol would create more winners than losers, open the way for dramatic changes in the world energy economy, and set off a competition among nations for dominance of the energy markets of the 21st century," he said.

Flavin said that the pace of adoption of renewables and other new energy technologies will depend on whether government policies-- many of which shore up the status quo and retard the development of alternatives -- are transformed.

"Experience in countries such as Denmark, Germany, and Japan shows that relatively modest policy shifts -- allowing new energy technologies access to the market, and leveling the playing field -- are all it takes to spur an energy revolution."

He also said that it is essential for the industrial countries to accelerate the energy revolution and encourage its spread to developing countries before those countries go forward with plans to build hundreds of fossil-fuel-burning power plants and millions of motor vehicles that could be producing carbon pollution for decades to come.

Ken Bossong, executive director of the Sustainable Energy Coalition, agreed with the Worldwatch Institute's assessment, adding that the U.S. domestic program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions does not go far enough.

"The administration's proposal to invest $3,600 million over the next five years in new tax incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy is a step in the right direction," he said. "However, this package pales when compared with the more than $5,000 million in tax incentives presently available each year for fossil fuel technologies.

"The tax dollars already being spent to promote coal, oil, and natural gas are roughly seven times the amount now being proposed to be spent on efficiency and renewables," he continued. "If the White House is sincere in wanting real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the combustion of fossil fuels, the first step should be to stop subsidizing polluting technologies."

Some economists are concerned that reducing dependence on fossil fuels would cripple the U.S. economy through a loss of jobs and the cost of replacing equipment in fossil-fuel burning industries. However, many environmental groups believe that the United States is not only capable of meeting the goals of the protocol in an affordable fashion, but can secure its economic stability through a restructuring of the energy industry. Bossong, for example, said that the benefits of supporting renewable energy and energy efficient technologies would offset any initial costs of implementing the protocol.

"The administration should realize that a package of substantially more aggressive funding and tax proposals, coupled with new transportation, appliance, and utility incentives will produce far more gain than pain," he said.

"The relatively small economic cost associated with these proposals should be more than compensated for by the creation of new domestic industries and jobs, expanded international markets, improved balance of trade, reduced oil imports, and enhanced national security, and the avoided environmental and public health costs of climate change and pollution," he added.

Other environmental groups believe that the Kyoto Protocol is a solid first step in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but insist that there is still more work to be done.

"It's a useful first step that doesn't nearly go far enough," said Dan Becker of the Sierra Club. "We are going to focus on pressing the United States to take pollution reduction steps at home that will achieve and exceed the Kyoto Protocol. The biggest step is to make cars go further on a gallon of gas. The protocol is far too weak compared to what scientists say we need to do, but it's a step forward, and that's good."

Becker also expressed concern about the emissions trading system set up by the protocol. Under an emissions trading regime, countries or companies can purchase less expensive emissions permits from countries or companies that have more permits than they need because they have met their targets with room to spare. Rules and guidelines -- particularly verification, reporting, and accountability -- have yet to be worked out.

"We are concerned that rather than calling for specific reductions by specific polluters, emissions trading gives polluters causing global warming a license to pollute or trade pollution within the system," Becker said. "And without a policing system, it's hard to see how an honor system can work to reduce pollution."

Fred Krupp, executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), praised the Kyoto Protocol as a landmark agreement that could "redirect the Earth from the path of an overheating climate and to a safer world."

Commenting on specific policies contained in the protocol, EDF senior economist Dan Dudek noted that "the protocol affirms the importance of emissions trading by companies in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, details on the critical elements necessary for this protocol to function, such as compliance and the rules for trading, are yet to be determined."

He added that the protocol's promise will only translate into real environmental gains for the planet if the commitments made in Kyoto are fully implemented and early reductions of greenhouse gases are achieved.

In contrast to the optimistic outlook of several organizations, other groups feel the protocol is not a feasible way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They believe that the lack of participation by key developing countries -- mainly China, Brazil, and Mexico -- would hinder U.S. international competitiveness. Others believe that the target years set by the protocol, 2008-2012, do not allow industries enough time to switch over to more energy efficient methods while remaining economically productive.

Gail McDonald, president of the Global Climate Coalition -- a group that represents manufacturing, utility, and mining companies -- said her organization opposes binding targets and timetables. "The Kyoto Protocol is flawed. It requires drastic reductions without the commitment of other countries and would be very expensive for the United States," she said.

"Without developing countries' commitment, the United States alone cannot make a significant enough impact on emissions because emissions in developing countries will be growing," McDonald added. "We believe that a global problem requires global participation."

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) also addressed the role of developing countries in emissions reduction, predicting that they will eventually agree to limit their emissions.

"The Kyoto Protocol is just one step in the ongoing international effort to limit global warming," a UCS spokesman said. "The protocol is not a one-shot deal, but the beginning of a long effort to prevent the serious consequences of global warming. In light of the vehement opposition by some countries and by the U.S. coal and oil industries, the protocol is a substantial achievement."

----------

Jennifer Coffey is an intern on the Global Issues journal staff.

Global Issues
USIA Electronic Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, April 1998