Reaching the Kyoto Targets, ACEEE

LBNL [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory]. 1996. Draft Report on Potential Impacts of Alternative Efficiency Levels for Residential Cooking Products. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Codes and Standards.

Linden, Henry R. 1997. “Operational, Technological and Economic Drivers for Convergence of the Electric Power and Gas Industries." The Electricity Journal 10(4): 14-25.

Mark, J. 1996. Zeroing Out Pollution: The Promise of Fuel Cell Vehicles. Cambridge, Mass.: Union of Concerned Scientists.

Nadel, S. 1998. The Public Benefit Trust Fund: An Essential Part of Federal Legislation to Restructure the Electric Utility Industry. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Nadel, S., and H. Geller. 1996. “Utility DSM, What Have We Learned? Where Are We Going?" Energy Policy 24(4): 289-302.

Nadel, S., S. Laitner, Marshall Goldberg, R. Neal Elliot, J. DeCicco, H. Geller, and R. Mowris. 1997. Energy Efficiency and Economic Development in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Nadel, S., and L. Latham. 1998. The Role of Market Transformation Strategies in Achieving a More Sustainable Energy Future. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy.

Nadel, S., M. Pye, and J. Jordan. 1994. Achieving High Participation Rates: Lessons Taught by Successful DSM Programs. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Nadel, S., and M. Suozzo. 1998. Selecting Targets for Market Transformation Programs: A National Analysis. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Nauss, Donald. 1997. “Fuel Cells: Top Engine of Change.” L.A. Times. August 13: A1, A7. NEMA [National Electrical Manufacturers Association]. 1997. Comments on the LBL Draft Report on Potential Impacts of Possible Energy Efficiency Levels for Fluorescent Lamp Ballast, Ballast Docket EE-RM-97-500. Arlington, Va.: National Electrical Manufacturers Association

ORNL [Oak Ridge National Laboratory]. 1997. Determination Analysis of Energy Conservation Standards for Distribution Transformers. ORNL-6847. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Reaching the Kyoto Targets, ACEEE

Parks, William (U.S. Department of Energy). 1998. Personal communication to Neal Elliott.

Poirier, Jean-Louis. 1997. “Global Power Market Forecast: The Prospects to the 21st Century." Paper presented at the Twelfth Annual Cogeneration and Independent Power Market Conference, New Orleans, La., March 23-24.

Repetto, Robert, and Duncan Austin. 1997. The Costs of Climate Protection: A Guide for the Perplexed. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.

Sanchez, Marla. 1997. Miscellaneous Electricity Use in U.S. Residences. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Scheer, R., J. Brinch, and J. Eto. 1998. Maintaining Support for Public Purpose Programs in Competitive Electricity Markets: An Analysis of the Proposed National Systems Benefits Trust (Draft). Washington, D,C.: Energetics and Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Spurr, Mark. 1998. District Energy Systems Integrated with Combined Heat and Power: Analysis of Environmental and Economic Benefits: Interim Report. Washington, D.C.: International District Energy Association.

Stout, Timothy, and William Gilmore. 1989. "Motor Incentive Programs: Promoting Premium Efficiency Motors." Paper presented at the Electric Council of New England Demand-Side Management Conference, Boston, November.

Thorne, Jennifer, and Margaret Suozzo. 1998. Leaking Electricity: Standby and Off-Mode Power Consumption in Consumer Electronics and Household Appliances. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

White House, The. 1998. Climate Change Technology Initiative—1999 Budget Briefing Materials. Washington, D.C.: The White House.

Williams, R.H., E.D. Larson, R.E. Katofsky, and J. Chen. 1995. “Methanol and Hydrogen from Biomass for Transportation." Energy for Sustainable Development 1(5): 18-34.

Yellen, Janet. 1998. "Testimony before the House Commerce Committee on the Economics of the Kyoto Protocol." March 4.

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

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?