SUNS  4324 Monday 16 November 1998

Washington, Nov 12 (IPS/Jim Lobe) -- The United States Thursday signed the Kyoto Protocol to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, but top officials said there were no immediate plans to submit the treaty for ratification by a hostile, Republican-led Senate.

The announcement, just 24 hours before the end of 12 days of talks in Buenos Aires on the treaty's implementation, was designed to assure other countries of American support for the Protocol and encourage developing countries to follow the lead of Argentina and Kazakhstan which have pledged to curb emissions.

"As we have said before, we will not submit the Protocol for ratification without the meaningful participation of key developing countries in efforts to address climate change," Vice President Al Gore said.

Gore called Thursday's signing at the United Nations in New York as an "important step forward," but stressed that it "imposes no obligations on the United States. The Protocol becomes binding only with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate," he added.

Other officials said that, given the Republican majority in the Senate, it was unlikely the treaty would be submitted until after the 2000 elections.

Environmental groups here were even more sceptical about the importance of the U.S. announcement. "The administration is allowing Congress to weaken its position at these talks and stall decisive action at home to reduce emissions," noted Kert Davies, science director at Ozone Action here.

"By openly stating that the U.S. will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol until developing countries meaningfully participate, the U.S. government is still holding the rest of the world hostage by supporting the agenda of the fossil fuel industry," said Greenpeace Climate specialist, Gary Cook.

Thursday's signing came 11 months after the Protocol was concluded by 168 nations in Kyoto, Japan. It binds the United States and 37 other industrialised countries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases by an average of at least five percent below their 1990 levels by the year 2012.

Most scientists believe that these gases - which are produced by the combustion of oil, petrol, coal and other mostly carbon-based chemicals - have been gradually warming Earth's atmosphere and altering its climate. If current trends continue, according to an international group of experts, average global temperatures could rise between one and 3.5 degrees centigrade by the year 2050.

The theory of global warming - which industry critics have attacked as "only a theory" - has been bolstered in the public mind by recent weather phenomena which are consistent with scientific models.

The last decade, for example, has been the warmest on record. The year 1997 set a record for average temperatures, and 1998 is set to eclipse it. And the frequency and severity of El Nino and associated droughts, floods, and extreme weather events are also considered signs of climate change of the kind one would expect from global warming.

Cuts in greenhouse emissions, however, threaten key US industries, particularly in the energy and transportation sectors, which have a strong economic interest in sustaining high consumption of oil, gas, and coal. On a per capita basis, the United States is by far the world's biggest producer of carbon dioxide.

Making a virtue of necessity, Clinton announced last year that he would not submit the treaty for ratification by the Senate unless key developing countries commit themselves to limiting, if not reducing, their emissions some time in the future.

That is why officials here hailed the Argentine and Kazakh announcements Wednesday as a major "breakthrough" in the talks, although they agreed with Republican foes that those two countries by
themselves were not enough to satisfy the "meaningful participation" requirement laid down by the administration.

In addition, Washington has demanded that the Protocol include provisions for so-called emissions trading - a mechanism that would allow companies which exceed their emission quotas under any future scheme to gain emission "credits" by sponsoring emissions-cutting activities in foreign countries.

U.S. officials argue that such a system will both encourage companies to go along with the Protocol and help speed the transfer of energy-saving technology and investment to poor countries. Many
environmentalists and European Union governments, on the other hand, see the scheme as a way for Washington to avoid taking strong domestic action to cut emissions while exporting more pollution to developing countries.

Meanwhile, the United States, which produces almost 25% of all greenhouse gases, continues to increase its emissions. According to a government report issued last week, emissions in 1997 grew by 1.4 percent in 1997 and are now about ten percent over 1990 levels.

The administration earlier this year introduced a five-year, six-billion-dollar legislative package to reduce emissions, and, despite strong Republican opposition, it succeeded last month in obtaining an initial instalment of about one billion dollars.

According to Howard Ris, executive director of the Union of Concerned Scientists, stronger domestic programmes are likely to be the only way the United States can persuade others that it is serious about cutting emissions. "Unless the administration takes more aggressive action over
the next two years, it will make little progress on its two key negotiating objectives," he said from Buenos Aires. "Only if we cut our emissions will others follow."

"The burden on the U.S. now is to provide a clear national action plan," said Kelly Sims of Ozone Action. "The U.S. still leads the world in producing global warming pollution, not solutions."