Warming talks end; little progress

By Henry Lamb

Highlights of the climate change meetings in Bonn, Germany, include three bomb threats, dozens of excruciatingly boring meetings, hundreds of NGO lobbyists, and very little progress.

Despite having to evacuate the hotel twice, and the Secretariat office once, in response to telephone bomb threats, much negotiating was done, but few agreements were reached. The major agreement was to continue the discussions at the next meeting to be held in October, at the same hotel in Bonn. Several key decisions are not expected to be taken until the 6th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP6) to be scheduled in late 2000, or early in 2001.

The delegates argued (for the most part, in courteous, diplomatic language) about Clean Development Mechanism (CDMs); Activities Implemented Jointly (AIJ); Joint Implementation (JI); Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF); and a bowl full of other esoteric issues represented by a pot full of alphabet-soup acronyms.

The more heated debate arose from discussions about LULUCF. To the initiated, that means carbon sinks. To the rest of us, it means land, and the vegetation that grows there. Vegetation and soil absorb carbon dioxide. If the carbon dioxide that is absorbed by vegetation is subtracted from the carbon dioxide that is produced from the burning of fossil fuel, then America would not have to reduce its energy consumption nearly as much as is desired by the European Union, China, and a host of developing countries. This is one of those decisions that will likely not be made until COP6.

Congressmen Lazio and Dooley appear to be working for the other side. They introduced a bill that would cap at 20% the amount of carbon dioxide removed by vegetation, that could be claimed as credit against the Kyoto emissions reduction targets. Go figure.

"Additionality" and "supplementarity" also ranked high in the argument department. These twisted monikers refer to the types of projects and activities for which developed nations may receive credit toward their emissions reduction targets. Additionality means that projects which are eligible for credit must be above and beyond projects that would have been undertaken without the Kyoto Protocol. Supplementarity means.... They're still working on it, maybe by October.

Negotiations about technology transfer resembled a tag-team match. In one corner, wearing the purple trunks of free enterprise, was the U.S. and Australia, who fought valiantly for "market-based" technology transfer. In the other corner, wearing red trunks, was China, G-77, and a host of LDNs (Least Developed Nations), who waged an equally valiant effort to keep technology commercial free, out of the grasp of profiteers, and under the supervision of U.N. referees. The bout was declared a draw and a return match is scheduled for October.

The battle about compliance never made it to the ring. The managers are still struggling with the rules of engagement. When the battle is waged, it will not be fought in three-minute rounds. The rules committee has not yet agreed whether non-compliance should be met with fines, penalties, sanctions, or excommunication. Nor have they decided who should, or can, enforce whatever remedy(s) might finally be selected. (Perhaps they are awaiting advice from the winner of the purple-red match).

The real winners in Bonn are the environmental NGO representatives who have the decision makers corralled for two weeks. Rarely is a delegate free from the face, or the shadow, of a passionate environmentalist preaching a doctrine of doom-certain, unless their particular horse is ridden to salvation. More than half of the human beings at the Bonn conference are promoting some brand of lobby-horse. Most are going in the same direction. Most are fed with government and foundation funds. Most are convinced that the earth can be saved only by turning its care and management over to the United Nations.

There are a few NGOs whose horses run in a different direction. The nuclear energy industry is in Bonn, promising cheap, clean, safe, carbon-free energy forever. A relative handful of industry NGOs try to temper the propaganda with pragmatism. Environmental NGOs are calling for the elimination of all fossil fuels, nuclear, and big hydro energy sources. Perhaps such proposals will be taken seriously when the NGO army arrives on fleets of solar-powered 747s and sail boats.

The tragedy is that the Kyoto Protocol is forcing a reduction, and eventual elimination, of low-cost, readily available energy sources while extracting tax dollars to subsidize experimentation and development of exotic energy sources which, when needed, would be developed without tax dollars by the free market. Fooling around with free markets is about as dangerous as messing with mother nature. Protocol pushers are doing both.

Without a major upheaval in American politics, the global warming regime will continue to grow, meeting by meeting, until the entire world is brought under its control. The regime cannot grow without America's money and political support, both of which flow freely from the current White House.

Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) and chairman of Sovereignty International.