Conference Summary

There is growing concern about human impact on the global climate as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, many nations entered into negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol, which would have established mandatory and legally binding restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. The Kyoto negotiations were difficult due to disagreement on several key issues, including: the levels of required emissions reductions, appropriate gases to include, the use of emissions trading, and how to include developing countries. Finally, in June of 2001, after several years of negotiations and in a move that stunned the world, the Bush administration withdrew U.S. support for the Kyoto Protocol.

Now the question remains: what's next for U.S. climate policy? As the Bush administration grapples with this complicated problem, The AEI-Brookings Joint Center on Regulatory Studies convened an expert panel Tuesday, June 19, 2001 to share their views on sensible climate policies for the U.S. in a post-Kyoto world.

Senator Chuck Hagel delivered the keynote address. He has been a leader in climate change discussions, including chairing the Senate Global Climate Change Observer Group. Following Sen. Hagel's speech, a panel of climate change experts identified useful steps needed to address climate change issues. This panel included Gregg Easterbrook of the New Republic; James K. Glassman, an AEI resident fellow; Thomas C. Schelling of the University of Maryland; and Robert M. White of the Washington Advisory Group.

Keynote Address: Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

Sen. Hagel opened the event by giving the audience a look at the Kyoto Protocol from the perspective of the U.S. Senate. According to Hagel, the Protocol was doomed to fail not only because of the obvious political reasons--that the Senate did not support it and President Bush had withdrawn U.S. participation from it--but also due to the conflicting scientific evidence on global warming that has emerged in recent years.

In the wake of the Kyoto Protocol, Sen. Hagel outlined a domestic and an international plan of action for moving forward on climate change policy.

On the domestic side, Hagel said that a viable plan would include:

 Voluntary steps toward greenhouse gas emissions.

 Continued research efforts to develop better climate modeling technology.

 Implementation of a program that would encourage reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, including research and demonstration projects, initiatives and incentives for voluntary efforts, and removing regulatory burdens that impede investment in voluntary initiatives.

 A single point of authority in the federal government that would coordinate climate change activities and resources.

On the international side, Hagel advocated that the United States should present either a revised Kyoto Protocol or a negotiation of a new protocol at the COP-6 and COP-7 meetings in Bonn and Marrakesh. This revision could:

 Include provisions such as creating a more flexible voluntary pledge and review system based on reductions from businesses.

 Allow developing countries to participate in an international agreement.

 Include the adoption of longer-term targets and timetables for emissions reductions, which would allow more time for new technologies to be adopted and would protect the billions of dollars that have been invested in energy production.

Panel Discussion

Robert White warned that coming up with a climate policy will be difficult due to the inherent uncertainties in the scientific, technological, political, and economic aspects of climate change. He stressed the importance of establishing a policy that will be able to adapt to unexpected events.

White presented evidence about climate change and made several recommendations for a course of action, including extending the time range in the Kyoto Protocol, and implementing an automatic adherence mechanism in the treaty--whereby all countries would automatically become participants in the climate change agreement when they reach a certain level of economic development.

White also said that more research and money should be invested in carbon management, better mathematical models, and the investigation of acceptable levels of concentration and the consequences for various ecosystems. He said that policymakers also need to understand more about the socioeconomic consequences of climate change.

White, like Hagel, believes that there is not a sufficient road map for a resolution on climate change, and that those with a vested interest in the issue are not clear on the direction that policy should take.

Thomas C. Schelling echoed the concerns of both Hagel and White, saying that despite the fact that so much money and research have already been invested in climate change and its consequences, there is still plenty of uncertainty about a way forward. However, he pointed out that the Bush administration's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol has had a beneficial effect on the issue, in that it has spurred far more attention from the media and politicians than in the past. In the wake of President Bush's decision, the issue has been the subject of continuous media coverage and discussion.

The Kyoto Protocol, in Schelling's opinion, may be a good short-term solution if policymakers are looking to "squeeze some fat out of the way we use energy," but we are in need a solution that will last through the next century.

On the issue of developing countries and the Protocol, Schelling said that we will not be able to get them to reduce greenhouse gases because it is simply not worth their while to retard their economic growth in the name of climate change.

James Glassman cautioned the audience against taking early action on global warming, decrying the "current enthusiasm" over the issue as being "based on either unsound or…unsettled science," and pointing out that the financial toll on the U.S. economy could top $400 billion a year.

Glassman does not see global warming as a "here and now problem," but rather an issue which may or may not need some attention decades from now. Instead of action now, Glassman proposed a "Manhattan project" of sorts--a concerted research effort on global warming that would be funding by government, industry, and foundations.

To support his view that further research is necessary before action can be taken, Glassman quoted the National Academy of Sciences, which said that "the ability of the United States to assess future climate change is severely limited by the lack of a climate observing system, by inadequate computational resources, and by the general inability of government to focus resources on climate problems."

Gregg Easterbrook contradicted James Glassman's remarks by telling the assembled audience that "the gravity of the [global warming] issue is gradually increasing" and that it was crucial to take global warming seriously even if scientists and policymakers are not sure of its long-term impact. According to Easterbrook, the greatest concern is that changes in climate patterns will affect agriculture.

In Easterbrook's view, there are two separate greenhouse issues. One is eliminating or greatly reducing carbon dioxide emissions--a daunting challenge because of CO₂'s relation to fossil fuels. But while elimination or sharp reductions may be close to impossible, there are other gases that could be eliminated.

The other challenge is implementing a pilot program for trading of emissions. In Easterbrook's view, implementing such a program would be an opportunity for President Bush to get ahead on an issue from which he appears to have stepped away.