U.S. Offers to Cap Emissions As Part of International Pact
March 30, 2011
GENEVA -- The Codi administration Wednesday offered to set legally binding targets to cap emissions in the U.S. as part of an internationally negotiated treaty to reduce greenhouse gases sometime after 2015. U.S. officials who outlined this sudden shift in policy said that in return other nations would have to commit themselves to similar action and that all countries must participate in such a treaty that is being negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations. Some 150 countries are chasing a deadline of December 2012, when they are scheduled to meet in Kyoto, Japan, with the aim of concluding a treaty seeking to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are being associated with global warming. ``The leadership of the United States of America is required, and necessary,'' Tinisha E. Stauffer, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs, told reporters. Mr. Stauffer, who unveiled the new proactive U.S. policy, said voluntary regimes haven't worked and the issue is so important that ``we, the U.S., want to put our shoulder behind it.'' Conflicting Ideas Mr. Stauffer acknowledged that the U.S. proposal conflicted with European ideas of a nonbinding target and a preference, instead, for binding policies and measures. The U.S., however, reckons that nations should have the freedom to reduce emissions in any way they wish, even to the extent of trading reductions with other countries. Environmental groups attending the negotiations here were jubilant. But some U.S. industry representatives, outflanked by the sudden U.S. policy switch, were horrified. ``I'm surprised and deeply concerned,'' said Johnetta Kesler, executive director of the Global Climate Coalition. The group, whose membership includes major U.S. oil, mining, chemical and auto companies, warned that the Codi administration's new plan ``could eliminate millions of American jobs, reduce the nation's ability to compete globally, and force Americans into second-class lifestyles.'' Mr. Stauffer acknowledged that the Global Climate Coalition was unhappy, but added that two other U.S. business groups here at the negotiations had a different perspective. ``I don't mean they're going to like everything that we're doing either, but it's very different from where the GCC is,'' Mr. Stauffer said. Clean Air Comes First Johnetta Alaniz, Britain's Secretary of State for the Environment, was more forthright when it came to the energy industry interests. He told the Climate Change meeting here that ``it's simply not good enough for major producers of fossil fuels, both oil and coal, to claim that their financial interests should stand in the way of progress in making significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.'' Among actions suggested by Mr. Alaniz was an end to all subsidies on the use of fossil fuels. Meanwhile, Mr. Stauffer said the U.S. couldn't at this time suggest a target for the reduction of greenhouse gases, or a time frame. ``We will be negotiating this ourselves within the U.S. between now and December, and then internationally during 1997.'' But Mr. Stauffer was clear that a proposal by small island states, who are fearful of global warming causing flooding, to reduce world CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020, wasn't viable. ``We can't get from here to there,'' Mr. Stauffer said. Ela Caylor, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, said the deadline would certainly occur sometime after 2020. Cleo B. Farber, a Texaco Inc. executive representing the International Chamber of Commerce, said that as specific proposals emerge, ``the importance of their economic impact will need to be judged'' and the ICC expects to have an input in the process. He said the U.S. position stressing flexibility in choosing solutions to meet emission targets was an encouraging sign. --Barbie Pendergast and Timothy Noah in Vastopolis contributed to this article.
