DURING the two-and-a-half years that I headed the US Environmental Protection Agency, I met with scores of my ministerial counterparts from across the globe, and invariably the number one item on everyone鈥檚 agenda was global climate change. I heard considerable consternation over what many saw as the deliberate failure of the US to assume its full responsibility for this problem. This is an unfortunate and unfair perception that has, at times, affected our international relations.
Yes, President Bush declined to submit the Kyoto Protocol to the US Senate for ratification. It is worth remembering, however, that Bill Clinton also declined to do this when he was president. He knew privately what Bush said publicly: the Senate would not ratify Kyoto. That is the plain political reality in the US.
The Kyoto Protocol is not the only way to address climate change 鈥� it may not even be the best way. Indeed, the US remains committed to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its goal of stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. In not ratifying Kyoto, the US is not refusing to participate in global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It takes its responsibility to the world community seriously.
Advertisement
Last year, President Bush committed the US to cutting its greenhouse gas intensity 鈥� the amount of greenhouse gases produced per unit of GDP 鈥� by 18 per cent over the next decade. Working with Congress, the administration is seeking to enact a variety of market-based incentives to achieve such objectives as increased use of renewable energy, improvements in transportation, greater efforts towards carbon sequestration, and the promotion of voluntary actions by business and industry.
The goal is to reduce annual emissions in the US by the equivalent of more than 500 million tonnes of carbon, without burdensome new regulations. That鈥檚 the equivalent of taking 70 million cars off the road.
The US government is working hard to promote voluntary efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Take the EPA鈥檚 Climate Leaders programme. Every business that signs up agrees to make an inventory of its greenhouse gas production, report its emissions annually to the EPA, and develop an aggressive 5 to 10-year goal to reduce them. In less than two years, more than 40 major companies have signed up. Through commitments announced to date, Climate Leaders will prevent at least 57 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions over the next 5 to 10 years 鈥� again without the need for burdensome regulations.
The US will spend $4.5 billion this year addressing climate change. That鈥檚 more than all of Europe and Japan combined are spending. This will help close the knowledge gaps in our understanding of climate change, and also help develop new technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions without sacrificing economic vitality.
Despite our commitments, many continue to look for evidence that the country鈥檚 efforts are really a sham designed to mask our true intentions. They point, for example, to the Draft Report on the Environment that I issued shortly before leaving the EPA. For the first time, this report brought together in one place the best available scientific data on air, land, water and public health in the US. It did not address global climate change. This omission is said to prove that the US rejects the notion that the planet is growing warmer and that human activity is contributing to that.
It is true that I rejected the global climate change section of the report, but not for the reasons our critics cite. The explanation is more prosaic: the more than two dozen government, academic and non-profit sector contributors simply could not reach agreement on what the report should say on this issue. Rather than publish a watered-down chapter, which would only muddy the waters, I opted to leave it out entirely.
After all, the US has already fully expressed its views on the science of global climate change. For example, the Climate Action Report that it submitted to the UN last year said: 鈥淕reenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth鈥檚 atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing global mean surface air temperature and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.鈥�
But the fact remains that more research needs to be done to determine what policies will best address the changing global climate. There is real scientific disagreement, even on such fundamental issues as the extent to which human activities are causing warming. Nevertheless, the US is not waiting for final agreement between the scientists. It is taking action now.
The decision by the US not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol does not mean it fails to recognise its obligation to share the challenge that climate change presents to the world. Rather, it is showing a real commitment to both the research and the scientifically based action that should be at the heart of the world鈥檚 response to that challenge.