Kyoto Report

The Japanese people are truly the world leaders in courtesy and politeness. All the stories are true: Japanese people do bow at almost every encounter with another person, whether Japanese or not. The people strive to be friendly, courteous, and helpful. Every hotel maid offers "ohayo gozaimasu" (which we think means good morning) to every passerby. Every transaction is concluded with "arigato," thank you, or "domo arigato" which adds "very much." New York and Boston cabbies should take a lesson from the fleet of taxis in Kyoto. The cabs are spotless. Drivers wear crisp uniforms, hats and white gloves. Between fares, they polish their cars with long feather dusters. Many of the people speak English, to some degree, and are eager to help in any situation.

The Kyoto International Conference Hall is thirty-minutes from downtown Kyoto by subway -- 260 Yen, 2800 Yen by taxi . Ten thousand people from around the world converged in Kyoto to attend the Third meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

In the jargon of the UN, that's COP III of the FCCC. COP III is the conference at which the Berlin Mandate (BM) is supposed to be fulfilled. The BM, adopted at COP I, called for legally binding QELROs (quantified emissions limitation reduction objectives) to be imposed on 34 developed nations -- but not on 131 developing nations -- before the end of 1997. Timothy Wirth, then Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs, actually supported the BM in 1995. It is little wonder that Wirth chose to leave Clinton's employment two weeks before Kyoto when Clinton reversed his previous position and said he would accept no agreement in Kyoto which did not include the "participation" of developing nations.

"Bill Clinton is dishonest," according to the Right Honorable John Gummer, former Minister of the Environment for the United Kingdom (UK), now a Member of Parliament (MP) and a lead delegate to COP III representing the European Union (EU). "The BBC ran video tape of Mr. Clinton standing on the White House lawn in 1992 after his victory and he promised to do what President Bush was unwilling to do -- honor the Climate Change Treaty by returning greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. I was there in 1995 when Tim Wirth stood with me in support of the Berlin Mandate. To come around now and require participation by the developing countries is sheer dishonesty."

Gummer's attitude reflects the mood of the majority of the delegates who began this conference with wide-ranging disagreements on the most substantive issues. Besides the issue of whether or >not the developing nations would be required to participate, the issue of targets and timetables spanned what appeared to be an uncrossable chasm. The U.S. position on opening day was to commit to simply returning emissions to 1990 levels by 2008 - 2012, with the "legally binding" mechanism to be triggered at that time (after Al Gore is safely out of office). The U.S. position would require a reduction of some 34%, according to most studies. Japan offered a target of 5% below 1990 levels; the EU proposed a target of 15% by 2010, and the Alliance of Small Island States wanted a target of 20% below 1990 levels by 2005.

These vastly different positions were staunchly held by the Parties as the conference convened on Monday, December 1. Posturing had already begun. Meanwhile, in Bonn, Germany, behind the scenes negotiations were underway which opened the possibility that the U.S. would modify its position on "differentiation" if the EU would modify its position on the "EU Bubble." Clinton then announced that Al Gore would attend the conference for only one day, and that he had been instructed to "walk away" from a bad deal. On the second day of negotiations, a trial balloon was launched, suggesting that the U.S. would accept a target of 3-1/2% reduction below 1990 levels if China and the G-77 countries would accept some form of "participation." When China robustly refused, the U.S. delegation vehemently denied making any offer to change its position. Such is the stuff of international negotiations.

The negotiating sessions ground on behind closed doors late into the night each day through Friday. Just before the dinner hour on Friday, New Zealand offered a proposal in hopes of breaking the deadlock caused by Clinton's demand for developing nation "participation." The proposal called for "evolutionary commitments" by developing nations. The proposal would allow developing nations to sign an agreement which would require them to be bound by the targets agreed to by the delegates at some unspecified time in the future (but not before 2014), at the point when their economies "evolved" to a certain (unspecified) emissions threshold. Such is the language of UN diplomatic doublespeak. Speaker after speaker lined up to support or oppose the new proposal. The Chinese delegate was furious. When he was recognized, he said: "No, no, no! It is a waste of time...out of the context of the Berlin Mandate."

Never far beneath the surface, the issue of the underlying science hovers. Sovereignty International published two editions of its newsletter for the delegates. The second edition's headlines read: "The Scientific Case Against The Climate Treaty" (see page ??). Dr. S. Fred Singer, author of Hot Talk, Cold Science, was present as one of Sovereignty International's eleven-member delegation. Although several press people interviewed Singer, and a press conference was arranged by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), the only news reports that appeared in the local press had to do with statements issued by Robert Watson, newly elected President of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Waston was asked in a press briefing about the growing number of climate scientists who challenge the conclusions of the UN that man-induced global warming is real and promises cataclysmic consequences. Watson responded by denigrating all dissenting scientists as pawns of the fossil fuel industry. "The science is settled" he said, and "we're not going to reopen it here." With that, the issue of science was omitted from any discussion at the proceedings. The science, however, is drawing ever more serious challenges by a widening range of climate scientists. More than 110 of the world's leading climatologists and atmospheric scientists have now signed the "Leipzig Declaration" which says, essentially, that the uncertainties that abound in climate science do not justify policy actions proposed by the COP III. (See page ??)

Most of the major media, however, has conspired to ignore dissenting scientists. The Media Research Center conducted an analysis of major media news coverage of the global warming issue between January 1993 and October 1997. They found that of the 48 stories during the period, 39 simply assumed that the science supporting global warming claims was true. Only seven stories acknowledged that some scientists were skeptical, and in only two stories, were the arguments of dissenting scientists actually discussed. Both ABC and CBS were identified as advocates of the global warming science with statements such as Peter Jennings' October 22, 1997 declaration that "...the overwhelming majority of scientist now agree [climate change] is being caused by man."

The media refuse to report statements such as that of Benjamin D. Santer, lead author of the IPCC Chapter on science. Science magazine quotes Santer as saying (May 16, 1997), "It's unfortunate that people read the media hype before they read the report. We say quite clearly that few scientists would say the attribution [of global warming to human causes] issue was a done deal." At least six independent polls have now been conducted by reputable firms such as the Gallup organization, and others, in America and in Europe. Depending on how the questions are framed, as few as three percent of American climate scientists agree with the IPCC conclusions, according to a survey conducted by the Meteorologisches Institut der Universitat Hamburg, as published in the UN's own Climate Change Bulletin (Issue 14, Second Quarter, 1997). The most generous estimate of agreement registered by any of the polls was 19%. That means that at least 81% of the scientists involved with climate reject the IPCC conclusion that "the balance of evidence suggests a human influence on global climate."

The media and the UN have conspired to orchestrate the most comprehensive propaganda campaign since Joseph Goebbels tried to prepare the world for Hitler's brand of global governance. In Japan, as was the case in Bonn and in Geneva throughout the year, CNN has become a 24-hour per day propaganda mill for the UN, using unconscionable scare-tactics in support of the Climate Change Treaty. Throughout the day and night, promotional spots for their "global warming" special fills the air waves, featuring hurricanes, floods, drought, storms, and all manner of other calamities.

Kyoto is especially well prepared to promote the party line on global warming. Posters line the streets everywhere praising COP III as the solution to the global warming problem. A youth orchestra consisting of students from around the world has been funded by the FCCC to hold concerts around the world in support of protecting the earth by reversing global warming. Students for COP III (SCOP) were all over town with various celebrations and demonstrations. The front page of The Daily Yomiuri, the local newspaper, featured a three-column color photo of Tomoko Nose, of Japan's Greenpeace, celebrating a ceremonial "tea," with water warmed by solar panels. The ceremony was attended by officials from Kyoto Green Action, Greenpeace Spain, and Environmental Right Action (ERA) of Nigeria.

Of the estimated 10,000 people attending COP III, about half are NGO representatives, about one-third are media types, and the rest are delegates. The Climate Action Network (CAN) consisting of a worldwide coalition of organizations such as the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, and Friends of the Earth, have 117 lobbyists registered. Greenpeace has 44 lobbyists in attendance, while Global Environmental Action fielded 114 lobbyists. ICLEA (International Council for Local Environmental Action) has 112 lobbyists listed. These are only a few of the nearly 200 green NGOs attending COP III. By contrast, Sovereignty International had 11 people, two of whom are from C-FACT, and four are from Eagle Forum. The Competitive Enterprise Institute had two people on the job in Kyoto. Despite being severely outnumbered, our efforts received significant recognition. In addition to the news bulletin published by Sovereignty International, David Rothbard, of CFACT, and Henry Lamb broadcast 37 programs totaling 23 hours of air time through a massive network of approximately 3000 radio stations. Several of the programs were also broadcast via shortwave to as many as 80 nations.

During the grinding boredom of waiting for the delegates to say something different, Friends of the Earth International conducted a vote among the green NGOs to identify the world's "Dirty Dozen," industries and organizations most responsible for destroying the earth. The top vote-getter received their "Scorched Earth Award." The Global Climate Coalition was chosen as the dirtiest of the dozen (with Exxon a close second) because of the $13-million ad campaign waged weeks before COP III. The award consisted of a half globe, filled with dirt, and a sign proclaiming "Scorched Earth Award."

In the spirit of environmental responsibility (and not to be outdone), the CFACT group secured the award and decided that it should be recycled into the "Scorched Economy Award." With a little ingenuity, the half globe had its sign changed and the dirt was covered with 1-Yen coins (129 Yen = 1 U.S. dollar). Press releases were issued, a large banner prepared, and the Sovereignty International delegation joined CFACT and CEI in a parade to the center of the press area where the award was presented to Friends of the Earth International. TV cameras rolled and flash bulbs flashed. Brief exchanges of friendly insults resulted in a challenge to a formal debate on the science of global warming, scheduled the day before the conference adjourns.

The first edition of our newsletter carried an invitation to delegates to share their views with America by visiting the Sovereignty International exhibit to record an interview to be played over the radio network. Both delegates and NGO representatives responded and produced a collection of interviews that will enlighten America to the attitudes that prevail at these conferences and around the world. John Gummer, quoted above, chastised America while a Member of Australia's Parliament expressed growing concerns about the intrusion of the UN into national sovereignty. A Russian member of the International Commission on Human Rights, representing the World Council of Churches, shared her views about the new "Earth Ethic." These interviews will provide useful understanding of how the rest of the world feels about the U.S. and about the UN.

Enter Prince Albert

A flock of helicopters rattled the windows of the Miyako Hotel until the Vice President's chopper landed on the hotel's heliport and deposited the most important person to attend the negotiations. Environmental NGOs proclaimed that Al Gore would deliver the dynamite necessary to break up the log-jams that plagued the proceedings. Gore's contribution to the celebration was hardly a firecracker. His speech to the delegates contained the usual rhetoric to which he appended "I am instructing our delegation right now to show increased negotiating flexibility if a comrehensive plan can be put in place."

Disappointment descended upon the delegates; environmental NGOs were outraged. A report published by the Climate Action Network was headlined "Gore's Climate Fraud," CNN ran clips of Gore campaigning in 1992, criticizing President Bush's inaction on climate change, contrasted by Gore's statement made to the Kyoto delegates. A spokesman for Friends of the Earth (FOE) stood before TV cameras reading from Gore's 1992 book Earth in the Balance, in front of huge banners with the words "Gore in the Balance." Gore's presence did create a minor ripple in the negotiations. Although Gore refused to define "increased flexibility," it took only minutes to learn (through our corridor intelligence systems) that Gore had authorized the American delegation to increase the U.S. negotiating position from reductions to 1990 levels to a target 3-1/2% below 1990 levels provided that China would accept some kind of language that could be interpreted as an agreement to accept some kind of commitment at some point in the future. The corridors were abuzz for nearly two hours until word was passed that China was holding firm, flatly refusing to accept any language that could be construed as accepting commitments to reduce emissions.

We can only imagine the frustration that must have accompanied Gore's report to Clinton, who, in recent weeks, gave the Communist Chinese government a 21-gun salute, a red-carpet White House reception, a port at Long Beach California -- and nuclear technology. The Chinese government reciprocated with a resounding no to Clinton's demand for "meaningful participation" by developing nations.

In the palatial Presidential Suite, (one floor above our humble bedroom-press room-broadcast center) Gore convened one of those unofficial non-meetings that never occurred, attended by the ministers from Japan, the EU (Luxembourg, UK, and Netherlands), to ponder the next step in the negotiations after the Chinese rebuff. The meeting concluded at 2:am after our corridor scouts were asleep. Chairman Estrada (Argentina) announced that a new revision of the negotiating text would be issued at 3:pm Tuesday, less than 24-hours before the scheduled adjournment.

At 8:pm the announcement came. The Chairman's new revised text included differentiated targets that would grant Australia permission to increase emission by 5% above 1990 levels while requiring the U.S. to reduce emission by 5% below 1990 levels by 2010. Japan's target was set at 4-1/2% below 1990, and the European Union's target set at 8% below 1990 levels. Still no movement by China on the all-important compliance by developing nations. Again, the delegates retreated behind closed doors, not to be heard from again until Wednesday morning -- a scant few hours before the delegates would be climbing onto airplanes heading home.

Wednesday, December 10, was scheduled to be the day the agreement would be adopted. The day's program announced a plenary session at 3:pm, followed by scheduled news briefings from the Secretariat and from most of the major delegations. A reception was scheduled at 8:pm at the Kyoto Concert Hall -- to celebrate. Three o'clock came and went. On the schedule board, all the times changed to "TBA." Five o'clock, seven o'clock, still no word from behind the closed doors of several working-group negotiating session. A flurry of speculation circulated through the corridors; "it may be about to blow-up." Finally, a little past eight, Chairman Estrada emerged, obviously weary, to announce that the working groups had all reported, and that he would take the reports and produce still another "final" draft of the agreement which would be ready at 11:pm. Delegates would then reconvene to consider the changes.

Relieved, but exhausted, the delegates, observers, and reporters found places to nap, places to eat, and some returned to their hotels for a shower and change of clothes in preparation for another night-long vigil. We had radio programs scheduled every two hours throughout the night. We expected to be able to report the final outcome of the conference, but the negotiations were still going on. At 7:35 am, on Thursday, December 11, -- just hours before our flight departed -- a friend who had spent the night at the conference hall slipped the final, final, amended agreement under our hotel room door. The delegates had finally agreed on the language of the document, although they still had to clear several other agenda items before the actual formal adoption. It was finally done. At nearly noon, after a marathon all-night negotiating session, the deal was finally complete. The position so confidently presented by the President and Vice President of the United States had been overwhelmed by China's tenacity. The President said that any target beyond returning to 1990 levels would be "unrealistic." In the end, he accepted 7% below 1990 levels as a target -- a reduction in excess of 40% from current levels of emission. The President said he would not accept an agreement that did not require "meaningful participation" by developing countries. In the end, he accepted an agreement that requires nothing from developing countries. The only reference to developing countries in the agreement specifies "no new commitments." The White House caved in, crumbled, and turned America's energy policy over to the United Nations.

Kyoto Report Table of contents | Next Article