Page images
PDF
EPUB

The Kyoto Protocol:

A Flawed Treaty Puts America at Risk

A discussion of the proposed

United Nations' Global Climate Treaty

and its impact on

the American way of life.

The Kyoto Protocol:

A Flawed Treaty Puts America at Risk

CONSAD Research Corporation, one of the Nation's leading economic forecasting firms, conducted a May 1998 economic analysis of the proposed Kyoto Protocol. Their analysis parallels findings by other leading economic forecasters which detail the negative impact this treaty will have on employment, economic output, and standard of life for working families, senior citizens, and those who live on fixed or low-incomes. The CONSAD study finds that as many as 3.2 million American jobs will be at risk due to regulatory actions that will be required in order to meet the emissions reductions mandated by the Kyoto Protocol. The study also provides a 50-state breakdown of job losses and economic dislocation that will result should these policies be implemented. ISSUE OVERVIEW

In December 1997, the Clinton Administration entered into a handshake agreement on a legally binding international treaty that will have major impacts on every facet of the U.S. economy. The Kyoto Protocol will require the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of seven percent below 1990 levels during the fiveyear period of 2008-2012. As a result, American working families and senior citizens will be forced to pay higher energy and consumer costs and millions of American jobs will be lost to foreign competitors. All of this economic pain, for a treaty that scientists can't even agree is necessary.

On October 22, 1997, President Clinton outlined for the Nation what he described as the official U.S. position regarding the upcoming treaty negotiations in Kyoto. The President stated that the United States would pursue a comprehensive framework

in Kyoto that included three elements,
which taken together, would enable the
international community to build a
strong and robust global agreement.
The three critical elements of the
President's strategy were:

• The U.S. would reduce emissions
to 1990-levels by 2008-2012;

• The proposed treaty language
would include flexible mechanisms
for achieving emissions reduction
targets, including provisions for
emissions trading and emissions
credits for U.S.-financed projects in
other countries; and

• The proposed treaty would also
ensure meaningful participation by
key developing countries.

It is important to note, while the
President's October 1997 plan looks
moderate in comparison to the final
Kyoto Protocol, his plan would have
still resulted in increased energy and
consumer costs for working families
and senior citizens and the loss of
1.5 to 1.8 million American jobs.
Economic analysis of the plan by the
White House's Office of Economic
Advisors indicated that the plan would
have had the effect on the U.S. econo-
my of imposing a $100 per ton carbon
tax. A tax of this magnitude would
have resulted in an increase in gasoline
prices by approximately 50 cents per
gallon and a 30 to 40 percent increase
in residential electricity bills.

While there is little doubt that the
President's own plan would have had
a negative impact on the U.S. economy,
the Kyoto Protocol, if it becomes offi-
cial U.S. policy, will be much worse.
Why did the U.S. go from bad to worse
in Kyoto?

Why did the U.S.

go from bad to

worse in Kyoto?

Countries with

rapidly emerging

economies, such

as China,

Mexico, India,

Brazil, and

others, are

exempt from

action under the

Kyoto Protocol.

U.S. Position

• Reduce emissions to 1990-levels by 2008-2012

• Flexible mechanisms (emissions trading and Joint Implementation) • Ensure meaningful participation by key developing countries

Upon arriving in Kyoto, the U.S. negotiators found the participants to be hopelessly deadlocked. Representatives of the European Union were critical of the U.S. because they felt the positioned outlined by President Clinton was not harsh enough. China and other countries exempted from action under the proposed treaty language were adamant in resisting the U.S. suggestion that they accept any responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in their countries. Despite the President's earlier pledge that the U.S. negotiators would walk away from Kyoto without a treaty rather than accept an agreement contrary to the best interest of the U.S., that did not happen.

Vice President Gore went to Kyoto. Admitting to some that it would be better for the U.S. to accept a bad treaty than to have no treaty, he instructed the U.S. negotiators to show "increased flexibility." From that point on, the U.S. surrendered on every key point of the President's original plan.

It is important to note that while the stated goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to reduce world greenhouse gas emissions, the truth is that total world emissions will only be about 0.04% lower in 2010 than they would have been under a business-as-usual scenario. Why? Because of the 168 nations involved in negotiating the Kyoto Protocol, only 38 nations will be required to take action. Countries with rapidly emerging

Kyoto Protocol

• Reduce emissions 7% below 1990levels by 2008-2012

• Limited emissions trading to
"developed" countries only and
credits for international projects
yet to be defined

• Failed to ensure participation by
developing countries

economies, such as China, Mexico, India, Brazil, and others, are exempted from action under the Kyoto Protocol. Despite the fact that many of these countries have the fastest growing economies in the world and will be among the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases by the year 2010, they are not required to take any action.

Although it is described by its supporters as a "work in progress", the Kyoto Protocol is, in fact, a flawed treaty that will have a profoundly negative impact on every aspect of American life.

CONSAD'S SUMMARY FINDINGS CONSAD Research Corporation, a leading economic forecasting firm which has done work for the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce, as well as numerous private corporations and foundations, was asked to provide analysis of the economic impact associated with the Kyoto Protocol mandates. They found that as a result of this treaty:

millions of Americans in high-
skilled, high-wage jobs will
become unemployed;

consumers will be forced to pay
more for energy and other con-
sumer goods;

✔American businesses will

become less competitive as they are forced to compete with

foreign companies based in countries that are exempted from the Kyoto mandates.

American consumers and businesses will pay more for gasoline, electricity, natural gas, and other necessities. Increased energy costs will make American products more expensive at home and less competitive abroad. As a consequence, the U.S. economy will slow and millions of American workers will join the unemployment lines.

To meet the mandates of the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. must reduce its energy consumption by approximately 30 percent. To reduce consumption, steps would have to be taken to drive up prices in order to coerce consumers to use less energy. Emissions trading would require the purchase of credits or allowances from other countries. Like a hidden tax, credits or allowances are added costs that would be passed along to consumers. In its analysis, CONSAD estimated the cost of these permit fees to be in the range of $140 to $265 per ton of carbon emitted by 2012.

CONSAD Research's key findings are, implementation of the Kyoto Protocol will mean:

• Consumers and businesses will
be forced to pay higher energy
costs. The resulting increase in
energy costs will also drive up
prices on all consumer goods;
• Approximately 3.1 million fewer
American workers will be work-
ing in the year 2010 as a direct
result of this treaty (assuming
high permit fee range);

• U.S. Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) in the year 2012 will
decline by at least $177 billion
and perhaps by as much as $318
billion;

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Key strategic industries (alu-
minum, pulp and paper, chemi-
cal, and others) will experience
persistent employment losses as
well as losing market share for
these products in international
markets;

Every region of the U.S. will expe-
rience increased unemployment
due to the treaty, with the greatest
losses occurring in California,
Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma,
and Texas;

• The highest job losses will be in high-skilled, high-wage employment sectors, with many U.S. workers being forced to take employment in lower-paying jobs in service-related industries rather than facing prolonged periods of unemployment; and

• The U.S. standard of living will decrease as working families are forced to reduce consumption of goods and services in every major category, including food, energy, and health care.

ALL PAIN AND NO GAIN

A thoughtful America should quickly and firmly reject implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. It is "all pain and no gain" for American working families, senior citizens, and those who live on fixed or low-incomes.

The interest of the American public must be given the highest priority when negotiating any international agreement. That was not the case in Kyoto, and until such time as it does, Americans from all walks of life should stand up and be counted as opposing a flawed treaty and the threat it represents to every aspect of the American way of life.

Like a hidden

tax, credits and

allowances are

added costs that

would be passed

along to

consumers.

[blocks in formation]

The concept of value added relates to the portion of the value of output that is attributable to the capital and labor used in production. It excludes the value of the intermediate inputs, such as raw and processed materials and product components, that are purchased and used in production. The total value added in all firms in all industries is the gross domestic (GDP) of the economy.

« PreviousContinue »