The signing by the United States last week of the Kyotoagreement limiting greenhouse gas emissions elicited jeers onCapitol Hill and in some energy circles. The move was seen as “moreof a gesture of goodwill” to encourage commitments from developingcountries that are attending the conference now underway inArgentina, according to Capitol Hill and gas industry sources. Theyseriously doubt President Clinton will submit the controversialaccord to the Senate, which is sharply opposed to it.

The global climate accord, which is the target of ongoingnegotiations at the Fourth Conference of Parties underway in BuenosAires, Argentina, commits the United States to reduce overallgreenhouse emissions by 7% below 1990 levels within the 2008-2012range. This would require the United States to reduce its energyconsumption by 30% by that time.

The U.S. signed the agreement over the strong warnings of Sen.Robert C. Byrd (D-WVA) and other Capitol Hill lawmakers. In aletter last Monday, Byrd urged President Clinton not to sign theagreement, saying that it would be “contrary to the plain language”of a resolution unanimously passed by the Senate in July 1997vowing not to approve the accord unless there were meaningfulcommitments from developing countries to cut emissions ofgreenhouse gases. Signing the agreement, which requires two-thirdsratification by the Senate to become law, now is nothing more thanan “empty gesture.”

Senate Energy Chairman Frank Murkowski (R-AK) said the Clintonadministration’s decision to sign the Kyoto Protocol doomed thetreaty. “I really believe that the treaty is dead – it just hasn’tbeen buried yet.” He believes the solutions for limiting greenhousegas emissions will be found in technology and market-orientedapproaches rather than with diplomats and negotiators.

The Senate views the Kyoto accord as a “fundamentally flaweddocument” that will never be ratified into law until the developingcountries agree to limit their greenhouse gas emissions in the samefashion as the larger industrialized countries. But that’s notlikely to happen – at least not anytime soon, said Derek Jumper,press aide to the Senate Energy Committee.

“China’s already told us for lack of a better word to stick itin our ear,” he noted. “And without the support of China and otherdeveloping countries, such as India, Mexico and Indonesia, there’sno way the Senate would ratify” the agreement. The reason: totalcarbon emissions from China and India combined are projected toexceed U.S. carbon emissions by the year 2010, according to theEnergy Information Administration. Total carbon emissions fromdeveloping countries in 1995 were 2,153 metric tons per year, ofwhich China accounted for about 37% and India 10%.

Although there’s “no question” that a global warming accordwould be good for natural gas, “there’s still quite a few of ourmembers [producers] that are uncertain as to the science behindglobal warming,” said John Sharp, vice president of federal andstate affairs and counsel for the Natural Gas Supply Association(NGSA). “We don’t necessarily endorse all initiatives that wouldincrease natural gas [usage] if they aren’t cost effective and theyaren’t based on good science.”

At the talks underway in Buenos Aires, where about 110-120countries are participating, “the U.S. delegation is trying…rightnow to strengthen the agreement in those areas that are importantto members of the Senate,” said Martin Edwards, director oflegislative affairs for the Interstate Natural Gas Association ofAmerica (INGAA). Discussions on this issue suffered a major setbackearlier in the month when international negotiators soundlyrejected a proposal to discuss voluntary commitments by developingcountries.

The Buenos Aires conference is a “continuation” of thenegotiations that were held in Kyoto, Japan, at the end of lastyear. “I think it’s going to be an ongoing thing for the next fewyears. It’s kind of an evolutionary thing,” Edwards said. He notedthat INGAA has an environmental representative at the talks, as doseveral individual oil and gas companies – Enron, BP, El PasoEnergy and Shell.

This is a “huge issue” for natural gas, Edwards said. “I’m kindof amazed that [gas] people don’t pay as much attention to it asthey should…” In the United States alone, tougher emissionstandards could lead to a greater number of power utilitiesswitching to gas-fired generation and backing away from coal as thefuel of choice, he believes.

Susan Parker

©Copyright 1998 Intelligence Press, Inc. All rightsreserved. The preceding news report may not be republished orredistributed in whole or in part without prior written consent ofIntelligence Press, Inc.