Download Locations

• National Council for Science and the Environment

Summary

U.S. policy toward global climate change evolved from a ''study only'' to a more ''study and action'' orientation in 1992 with ratification of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). The Convention committed developed countries to aim at returning their greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 levels by the year 2000. The U.S. decision to ratify the FCCC reflected both the nonbinding nature of the accord and analyses that suggested that the United States could achieve the necessary reduction at little or no cost. Under the FCCC, developed countries were to adopt national plans and policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The United States submitted such plans in 1992, 1994, and 1997. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) has been the principal U.S. statutory response to the FCCC. Primarily an energy policy response to the Iraqi takeover of Kuwait and the U.S.-led reaction, EPACT's energy conservation, renewable energy, and other titles were also seen as having a beneficial effect on global climate change concerns. In addition to EPACT, the Bush and Clinton Administrations encouraged voluntary reductions by industry through administrative initiatives, such as EPA's various ''green'' programs. This largely voluntary approach to complying with FCCC allowed the two Administrations to implement a climate change policy without having to ask Congress for new authorities. With no penalty for failing to achieve the reduction goal, and reduction costs assumed to be minimal, Congress had little incentive to challenge Administration policy. However, the subsequent inability of the United States to achieve its goal under the FCCC and the binding nature of the Kyoto Protocol have raised questions about this approach to climate change policy. In particular, recent analyses suggesting substantial costs from any emissions reduction program have renewed interests in costs as an overarching policy issue. In the 105th Congress, the Senate signaled its concern by unanimously approving S.Res. 98, which stated that the United States should not approve any Kyoto agreement that did not impose binding reduction requirements on all nations and requested the Administration to analyze the costs implied by any treaty submitted for its approval. The Administration has said it will not submit the Kyoto agreement for Senate consideration until developing nations make at least some commitments. The House responded primarily by vigorous oversight of greenhouse gas reduction programs, questioning whether the EPA in particular had authority to fund various energy efficiency programs. This focus on costs represents an attempt to determine whether action on climate change is prudent, given the uncertainty of the risk. Besides the scientific uncertainty involved in climate change, the Kyoto Protocol adds an additional risk because of its exclusion of developing countries. If ones believes that the costs of greenhouse gas reductions are modest, action to reduce emissions is not as risky as it first appears. However, if one perceives substantial costs from reducing carbon emissions, the uncertainty about any benefits raises serious questions as to the prudence of such action. This clash of perspectives is likely to ensure that costs remain a pivotal issue, along with scientific uncertainty, as the climate change policy debate continues.

Related Legislation:
• S.R.98

XML