Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
44162736
label
18. Global Warming / Climate Control 1997 [AFL-CIO]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
44162736
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
18. Global Warming / Climate Control 1997 [AFL-CIO]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of Communications (Clinton Administration)
Subject Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
44162736
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7431968-20130306F-018-012-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
00e081cafc317009
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2013-0306-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Communications
Series/Staff Member:
Subject Files
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
14294
FolderID:
Folder Title:
18. Global Warming / Climate Control 1997 [AFL-CIO]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
91
1
9
2
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. profile
DOB (Partial) (1 page)
n.d.
b(6)
002. profile
DOB (Partial); POB (Partial) (I page)
08/1997
b(6)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Communications
Subject Files
OA/Box Number: 14294
FOLDER TITLE:
18. Global Warming / Climate Control 1997 [AFL-CIO]
2013-0306-F
im1348
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRAJ
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office |(a)(2) of the PRA
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute ((a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency |(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
h(3) Release would violate a Federal statute ((b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information |(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information |(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes l(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells |(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
CLAIM ON U.S. COMPETITIVENESS/JOBS MOVING OVERSEAS
CLAIM:
A global warming treaty, particularly one without developing country
commitments, would injure U.S. competitiveness and send jobs overseas.
FACT:
There is no substantive evidence to support this claim.
A review of the academic literature demonstrates, "that there is little to document the
view that environmental regulations have had a measurably adverse effect on
competitiveness. studies attempting to measure the effect of environmental
regulations on net exports, overall trade flows, and plant-location decisions have
produced estimates that are small, statistically insignificant, or not robust to tests of
model specification." (Sources: Jaffe, Peterson, Portney, and Stavins, "Environmental Regulation and International
Competitiveness: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?" Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper 94-08)
While there is limited empirical literature on the specific impacts of carbon policies, a
number of factors suggest that reducing carbon emissions is unlikely to have a serious
negative effect on U.S. jobs and competitiveness:
Most emissions come from sectors which cannot move overseas. Transportation
and buildings, for example, account for roughly two-thirds of U.S. emissions.
(Source: U.S. Climate Action Report, 1997)
Energy costs for manufacturing industries average just 2.2 percent of total costs
(Source: 1995 Annual Census of Manufacturers), making it highly unlikely that shifts in the
relative price of energy would affect location decisions or trade flows.
Substantial differentials in energy prices between countries already exist. For
example, the price of a barrel of heavy fuel oil in Venezuela in 1994 was $5.06
compared with $13.65 in the United States, yet American firms did not generally
flee to Venezuela. (Source: Statistical Abstract 1996. Table 1359, page 848)
Certain energy intensive industries, accounting for some 2-3 percent of total industrial
output, are more sensitive to shifts in relative energy prices. However, the economic
literature illustrates that the effects on these industries would vary tremendously
depending on which emissions reduction policies are chosen. (Source: "The Costs of Climate
Protection: A Guide for the Perplexed", Robert Repetto and Duncan Austin, World Resources Institute, 1997)
The Clinton Administration has made no determination about emissions reductions
policies to be implemented, yet has tended to favor those, such as joint
implementation, which are widely regarded as having the greatest potential to reduce
the overall costs. (Sources: U.S. Climate Protocol Framework, January 1997; "The Costs of Climate Protection: A
Guide for the Perplexed", Robert Repetto and Duncan Austin, World Resources Institute, 1997)
The Clinton Administration has taken a firm stand on developing country obligations,
consistently making it clear that any climate treaty must include meaningful
developing country commitments. (Sources: U.S. Climate Protocol Framework, January 1997; Speech by
President Clinton to the UN General Assembly, June 1997)
CLAIM ON ECONOMIC DAMAGE
CLAIM:
The Administration's plans on climate change would devastate the
economy -- raising unemployment, significantly reducing GDP, and
costing hundreds of thousands of American jobs.
FACT:
The Clinton Administration has made no determination about specific
emissions reduction policies to be implemented, and has consistently
emphasized the importance of securing reductions in the most cost-
effective way possible.
President Clinton's priority is and will remain sustaining a healthy and robust
economy. Since the President took office, the private sector of the economy has
grown at more than twice the rate of the previous four years, business investment has
boomed at a rate not seen since the Kennedy Administration, unemployment is at a 24
year low, and 12.9 million new jobs have been created. (Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Department of Commerce; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor)
More than 2,300 economists, including eight Nobel Laureates, agree that taking
preventive steps to confront climate change is justified and that it is possible to do so
without harming American living standards. In fact, they state that long-term
productivity could be improved by such steps. (Source: Economists' Statement on Climate Change,
January 1997)
A review of the economic literature suggests that the costs of achieving emissions
reductions would vary enormously, from substantially negative to slightly positive,
depending on which specific policies are chosen. (Source: "The Costs of Climate Protection: A Guide
for the Perplexed", Robert Repetto and Duncan Austin, World Resources Institute, 1997)
While the Administration has not decided on a specific level or timeframe for
emissions reductions, nor the policies by which reductions would be achieved, it has
tended to favor policies, such as joint implementation, which are widely regarded as
having the greatest potential to reduce the overall costs. (Sources: U.S. Climate Protocol
Framework, January 1997; "The Costs of Climate Protection: A Guide for the Perplexed". Robert Repetto and Duncan Austin.
World Resources Institute, 1997)
"I have devoted my passion and the best ideas I could come up with 10 try to get this
country in good shape economically and socially. But I do believe it is folly for us to
believe that we can go into the next century without a strategy that says we 're going to be
responsible and we 're going to do our part and lead the world on environmental
issues
Let's find a way to preserve the environment, to meet our international
responsibilities, to meet our responsibilities to our children, and grow the economy at the
same time.
President Clinton
CLAIM ON ENERGY INTENSIVE INDUSTRIES
CLAIM:
Industries that are particularly energy intensive would be especially
hard hit by any actions to limit or reduce carbon emissions. This
conclusion is supported by the Department of Energy's own Argonne
Lab study.
FACT:
Impacts on energy intensive industries and on the economy as a whole
from limitations on carbon emissions will depend on the level of
reductions sought and on the policies used to achieve them. The
Administration has made no decisions in either area.
The Department of Energy's Argonne Lab study assumes fuel price scenarios that fail
to account for key policies that have the potential to substantially reduce the cost of
emissions reductions, including multi-year emissions budgets, international emissions
trading, and joint implementation. These are policies for which the Administration
has expressed support. (Sources: U.S. Department of Energy; U.S. Climate Protocol Framework, January 1997)
While the six energy intensive industries that the Argonne study focused on would
tend to be more sensitive to shifts in relative energy prices, the economic literature
illustrates that such shifts would vary tremendously depending on the specific
emissions reduction policies chosen. (Source: "The Costs of Climate Protection: A Guide for the Perplexed."
Robert Repetto and Duncan Austin, World Resources Institute, 1997)
CLAIM ON SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTY
CLAIM:
Enormous scientific uncertainty exists about the issue of global
warming. Predictions of future warming are highly speculative. Any
meaningful action should wait until the science is better understood.
FACT:
Global warming has been extensively studied by the international
scientific community. The existing scientific consensus provides
overwhelming evidence of the need to take action to reduce emissions.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the authoritative
international scientific source on this issue. It includes the work of over 2,000 of the
world's leading climate experts from some 60 countries. The IPCC was created to
provide decisionmakers with the very best information about climate change, about
the human role in it, and about the impacts to humankind were the climate system to
change. (Source: Dr. Daniel Albritton, Director of the Aeronomy Lab, NOAA, Briefing for Reporters, July 24, 1997)
Over 2,700 scientists familiar with the causes and effects of climate change have
endorsed the IPCC's work. (Source: Scientists' Statement on Global Climatic Disruption. June 1997)
In its Second Assessment Report completed in 1995, the IPCC concluded that:
Greenhouse gas concentrations (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) have
increased substantially since pre-industrial times.
The Earth's climate has changed over the past century, including rising global
temperatures and sea levels, precipitation increases over land in high Northern
latitudes, and particularly hot temperatures in recent years.
"The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global
climate." The magnitude, timing, and geographic pattern of temperature changes
observed over the last century are unlike any ever seen in the natural record and
track closely with models projecting the effects of human activities.
Future climate changes are expected. Projected warming in the next century of
2.0-6.5 degrees F would be faster than any seen in 10,000 years and is expected to
cause sea level rise of up to 3 feet, increased frequency and intensity of floods and
droughts, and other factors which could produce severe impacts on humankind.
Uncertainties still exist. "Surprises" are virtually inevitable, as the complex
climate system reacts to rapid changes in the atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases. (Source for the above: IPCC Second Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers)
As greenhouse gases emitted today will remain in the atmosphere for decades,
reversing climate change is a very slow process. The longer we wait, the more
serious a legacy we leave for future generations. (Source: Dr. Jerry Mahlman, Director of the
Geophvsical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, NOAA, Briefing at the U.S. Department of State, March 10. 1997))
CLAIM ON NEW TAXES
CHARGE:
The Administration's answer to climate change will be to impose more
taxes.
FACT:
The Administration has not endorsed any particular implementation
plan to address climate change.
The President does not want to raise taxes. In fact, he has just signed
an agreement to cut taxes while balancing the budget.
There are a number of mechanisms that could be used to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Modelers and other climate change policy
experts sometimes focus on options that could increase revenues, but
most consider revenue neutral policies to be a natural baseline. (Source:
"The Costs of Climate Protection: A Guide for the Perplexed". Robert Repetto and Duncan Austin, World
Resources Institute, 1997)
At this point, the Administration is not ruling anything in or out with
respect to various policies to address climate change.
CLAIM ON PRESENT EFFECTS
CLAIM:
There is no detectable evidence that human-induced global warming is
occurring. Changes over the past century are nothing more than
natural variability in the climate system.
FACT:
The clear scientific consensus is that human influence on the climate
system is now discernible. Furthermore, it is virtually unanimously
agreed within the international scientific community that increasing
greenhouse gas emissions will cause accelerated warming within the
next century.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the authoritative
international scientific source on this issue. It includes the work of over 2,000 of the
world's leading climate experts from some 60 countries. The IPCC was created to
provide decisionmakers with the very best information about climate change, about
the human role in it, and about the impacts to humankind were the climate system to
change. (Source: Dr. Daniel Albritton, Director of the Aeronomy Lab. NOAA. Briefing for Reporters, July 24, 1997)
Over 2,700 scientists familiar with the causes and effects of climate change have
endorsed the IPCC's work. (Source: Scientists' Statement on Global Climatic Disruption, June 1997)
The IPCC's 1995 Second Assessment Report concluded that, "The balance of
evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." The magnitude,
timing, and geographic pattern of temperature changes observed over the last century
are unlike any seen in the natural record and track closely with models projecting the
effects of human activities. (Source: IPCC Second Assessment Report: Summary for Policymakers)
Any warming and resulting climate effects that have been felt up to now are small
when compared to what is likely for the next century. Even under its most
conservative estimate, the IPCC concludes that the rate of warming in the next
century will be greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years. The impacts are
predicted to include rising sea levels, an increase in the frequency and intensity of
severe weather (such as floods and droughts), the spread of infectious diseases into
new areas, changes in agricultural productivity, and the shifting or disappearance of
some natural ecosystems. (Source: IPCC Second Assessment Report)
"There is no debate among any statured scientists of what is happening The only debate is the
rate at which it's happening
Scientists,
by
nature,
are
very
conservative
They
don't
want
to overstate things. In this debate, the skeptics are atypical of the general scientific community.
The irony is that when you find scientists who are adamant on any side, they look very curious
within the scientific community. But to the general public, they come across as the most
knowledgeable and authoritative of all.'
-- Harvard University earth scientist James McCarthy, The Washington Post, 5/25/97
CLAIM THAT THE PRESIDENT IS NOT SERIOUS
CHARGE:
The Administration's recent overtures on climate change reflect an attempt to
make the President appear engaged, even though he hasn't done much on this
issue.
FACT:
The Clinton Administration has a strong record in confronting climate
change.
In 1993, President Clinton developed the Climate Change Action Plan
(CCAP) with the goal of returning total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to
their 1990 levels by 2000. Although lower-than-expected fuel prices and
higher-than-expected economic growth and electricity demand have caused
CCAP to fall short of its goal, its programs will result in a reduction of 76
million metric tons of carbon equivalent. (Source: U.S. Climate Action Report, 1997)
Through almost 50 initiatives with a wide range of industry sectors, this effort
has demonstrated that government and the private sector can work together
successfully to cut emissions.
Had the Congress not substantially cut funding for these programs (about 40
percent in recent years), they would have the brought the U.S. closer to the
objective of lowering emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
Additional initiatives, including the Partnership for a New Generation of
Vehicles and the Million Solar Roofs, demonstrate the President's
commitment to developing the technologies that will ultimately be needed to
solve the climate change problem.
Other 4
CLAIM ON THE EUROPEAN UNION POSITION
CHARGE:
The European Union has proposed an emissions target of 15 percent below 1990
levels by 2010. If they can make those kinds of cuts, why can't the U.S.?
FACT:
The U.S. believes that the EU position is unrealistic and unnecessarily
stringent. We will not support binding targets that cannot be achieved or
that would impose undue costs on the economy.
The EU target represents a target for the block as a whole, not for each
country. While some nations within the EU are to reduce their emissions,
others will actually increase theirs. The ultimate goal is to have a total
reduction of 15 percent below 1990 levels.
Despite this "bubble" concept, the EU has not supported the proposals put
forward by the U.S. to allow other nations to trade emissions, nor have they
endorsed the concept of joint implementation.
The EU favors a set of mandatory, harmonized policies and measures for
reducing emissions. These include carbon taxes, energy efficiency standards,
and other mechanisms.
The U.S. has not seen evidence to convincingly demonstrate how the policies
advanced by the EU, if indeed they could even succeed in putting them in
place, would result in the kinds of emissions cuts they have advocated.
The EU has been virtually silent on the issue of developing country
commitments.
The U.S. will not propose a target that we believe to be unrealistic or overly
stringent. The Administration is carefully considering what level of cuts we
would find acceptable, Furthermore, the U.S. will not sign an agreement that
prescribes internationally mandated policies and measures for reducing
emissions. We believe strongly that those decisions must be left to individual
governments which should be given the widest range of options possible for
attaining cuts cost-effectively Lastly, the U.S. will not consider an
agreement that exempts developing countries. This is neither environmentally
nor economically justifiable.
Other 5
CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTICS BACKED BY
ENERGY INDUSTRY GROUPS
Most Scientists Think That Climate Change Is Occurring. Harvard University earth scientist James
McCarthy recently said, "There is no debate among any statured scientists of what is happening The
only debate is the rate at which it's happening Scientists, by nature, are very conservative They
don't want to overstate things. In this debate, the skeptics are atypical of the general scientific
community. The irony is that when you find scientists who are adamant on any side, they look very
curious within the scientific community. But to the general public, they come across as the most
knowledgeable and authoritative of all." [Washington Post, 5/25/97]
Western Fuels Association Made Effort To Find & Fund Skeptical Scientists. The 1994 annual
report of the Western Fuels Association -- a nonprofit organization that purchases coal for electric
utilities -- states that "there has been a close to universal impulse in the [fossil fuel] trade association
community here in Washington to concede the scientific premise of global warming We have
disagreed, and do disagree, with this strategy.' To counter it, the group said it would support the work
of those who challenged the premise. Western Fuels wrote, "Scientists were found who are skeptical
about much of what seemed generally accepted about the potential for climate change. " [Washington
Post, 5/25/97]
Ties Between Skeptics & Fossil Fuel Industry Made Public In 1995 Minnesota Hearing. The close
ties between scientists who cast doubts on global warming and the fossil fuel industry were made public
in a May 1995 hearing before Judge Allan Klein of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Klein
was charged with the responsibility of determining the environmental costs of the burning of coal by
Minnesota power plants. At the hearing global warming skeptics Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling
revealed under oath that they had received more than $165,000 and more than $300,000 respectively in
industry and private funding over the previous five years. [Washington Post, 5/25/97]
Balling Admits Receiving Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars From Energy Industry Groups.
In March 1996, Robert Balling told the Washington Post that he receives about $20,000 a year in
speaking fees from oil and coal groups, and that he has received a total of about $200,000 in personal
income from such groups over the past eight years. He also said that his research institution receives
roughly $150,000 annually from such sources. In March 1997, Balling said, "I'm not suggesting I've
become filthy rich by being involved in global warming, but it has been exciting and the rewards
have been not just professional, but also financial. [Washington Post, 3/21/96; The Observer, 3/9/97]
CLIMATE CHANGE
ENERGY INDUSTRY GROUP FUNDING
SKEPTIC
Patrick Michaels,
Over $300,000 In The Past Five Years. The Western Fuels Association
Associate Professor of
funded two journals that he edited and provided a $63,000 grant for his
Climatology at the
research. The German Coal Mining Association gave Michaels another
University of Virginia
$49,000 and the Edison Electric Institute gave him $15,000. Michaels
received $40,000 from western mining company Cyprus Minerals.
Robert Balling,
Over $700,000 From Coal & Oil Interests. Balling has received, either
Director of
alone or with colleagues, over $700,000 in research funding from coal and
Climatology Program
oil interests. This includes roughly $50,000 from Cyprus Minerals,
at Arizona State
$80,000 from the German Coal Mining Association, $75,000 from British
University.
Coal Corporation, and at least $48,000 from two Kuwaiti government
foundations which also published his 1992 book, "The Heated Debate," in
Arabic.
Sherwood Idso
Undisclosed Amount of Funding From Energy Industry Groups. Idso
Phoenix, AZ-based
works closely with Balling and has received an undisclosed amount of
physicist
funding from oil, gas and utility sources. A company founded by Idso was
paid $250,000 in 1991by the Western Fuels Association to produce a
video entitled, "The Greening of Planet Earth," which said that CO2
emissions were good for the environment.
S. Fred Singer,
Funded By Oil Companies & Rev. Moon. Singer has received funding
Head of "Science &
from Exxon, Shell, ARCO, Unocal and Sun Oil. Singer is also on the
Environmental Policy
executive advisory board of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's S magazine, The
Project," Former
World and I. Singer's organization, "The Science and Environmental
University of Virginia
Policy Project," received free office space funded by Moon -- who owns
Professor
the Washington Times. Moon's organization has also published three of
Singer's books.
Richard S. Lindzen
Makes $2,500 Per Day As Consultant For Energy Companies.
Meteorology Professor
at MIT
[Sources: Washington Post, 3/21/96; 5/25/97; Houston Chronicle, 10/6/96; The Observer, 3/9/97;
Boston Globe, 11/17/95; Gannett, 4/12/96; Nightline, 2/24/94; Harper's, 12/95 ]
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
4
The Hill
Wednesday, October 8, 1997
GOP heats up climate on global-warming issue
support a global-warming treaty.
The GOP's rapid scathing response to
By Sandy Hume
Paxon sent a letter to the White House
indications from the White House that its
In search of a wedge issue for the 1998
on Mondav - while Clinton was attend-
global-warming plan may well feature an
campaign, Republicans have launched a
ing a climate conference at Georgetown
energy tax translated quickly into elec-
frontal assault on the Clinton administra-
University - charging that the plan to
toral politics. House Republicans are ad-
tion for its support of a global-warming
sign on to the restrictive global-warming
mittedly searching for issues to distin-
treaty and its consideration of energy tax
treaty is "both politically misguided and
guish themselves from Democrats they
hikes.
economically disastrous."
joined on the balanced budget deal.
Capitol Hill was abuzz this week as
Paxon has already picked up an en-
The NRCC quickly went after 91
Republicans scrambled to make hay of re-
dorsement of the resolution from the
Democrats, some of whom supported the
ports that President Clinton's commit-
National Taxpayer's Union, which called
Btu (British thermal unit) and gas tax
ment to a global-warming treaty could ne-
it "a vital effort on behalf of America's
hikes proposed to finance the Clinton ad-
cessitate taxes that would drive up power
overburdened taxpayers."
ministration's 1993 health care plan.
bills and gasoline prices.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) has
They sent out releases detailing the high-
Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who
accepted Gingrich's invitation to serve as
est possible tax hikes contemplated by
has been putting together a 'truth squad'
a dissenting voice on global warming at
the administration, challenging
to attend the global-warming summit in
the December summit. A member of the
Democrats to go on record as being op-
Kyoto, Japan, in December, led off
Science Committee who spent Tuesday
posed.
Monday by blasting the administration
morning in hearings on climate change,
"This is where Rep. [Walter] Capps (D-
on energy taxes.
Rohrabacher gave a preview of the mes-
Calif.) will show his true colors," NRCC
PAMELA HAZEN/THE HILL
By Tuesday afternoon, the National
sage he will deliver in Kyoto.
Chairman John Linder declares in one
"It is clear that there is no consensus in
Rep. Bill Paxon (R-N.Y.) opposes
Republican Congressional Committee
release. "If he supports hard-working
the scientific community to warrant even
new energy taxes.
(NRCC) was issuing challenges to
Americans, he will oppose this destruc-
Democrats to go on record opposing the
a minimal expenditure of federal funds,
tive new tax plan, instead of making it
potential tax hikes.
much less a commitment to change our
nomic impacts of the adoption of an
even harder for overburdened taxpayers
And with the House Science
entire way of life," Rohrabacher said.
emissions-reducing treaty.
to make ends meet."
Committee holding its own hearings on
He may be joined by other members of
Rohrabacher predicted that the Kvoto
The Kyoto conference on the interna-
global climate change Tuesday morning,
the Science Committee and the
summit will be "a gathering of ideological
tional agreement to cut emissions of
Rep. Bill Paxon (R-N.Y.) was preparing to
Commerce Committee in Japan to pro-
and environmental extremists
represent-
greenhouse gases, such as carbon
brief House Republicans today on his res-
vide skeptical sound bites on global
ing the [Clinton administration's] radical-
monoxide and methane, will be held in
olution opposing any new energy taxes to
warming, and to warn of negative eco-
ism on the subject of global warming."
the historic Japanese city, Dec. 1-10.
+0012023320905 UCS DC
417 P02
OCT 08 '97 15:28
UNION OF
CONCERNED
SCIENTISTS
Selected Quotes from Signers of the "Call for Action"
"This call to action shows the depth of international agreement and concern about
climate change - concern that extends well beyond the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change and climate specialists."
Mario Molina
Nobel laureate in Chemistry (1995)
"The consensus for action at Kyoto runs deeply throughout the scientific
community. The world's great ecological systems are already severely stressed. We must
get the process of greenhouse reductions moving."
Jane Lubchenco
Chair of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
"Things could get even worse than scientists anticipate. People take out insurance
against much less likely threats than climate change. We need to act now to curb global
warming."
Paul J. Crutzen
Nobel laureate in Chemistry (1995), Mainz, Germany
"Scientists have a duty to keep reminding the people and politicians of the world
that our global problems need urgent attention."
Sir Michel Atiyah
Former President of the Royal Society of London
"The negative impacts of modern societies on the environment are very strong
and very destructive. It would therefore be quite prudent to set the groundwork, without
delay, for a program on worldwide scale that can stem the destructive activities and
correct, as well as possible, the damage that has already been done. The point of no return
may be closer than most people suspect."
Isabella Karle
National Medal of Science (1995)
Jerome Karle
Nobel laureate in Chemistry (1985)
Washington
Office:
1616
P
Street
NW
Suite
310
Washington, DC 20036-1495
202-332-0900
FAX: 202-332-0905
Cambridge Headquarters: Two Brattle Square Cambridge, MA 02238-9105 617-547-5552 FAX: 617-864-9405
California Office: 2397 Shattuck Avenue Suite 203
Berkeley, CA 94704-1567
510-843-1872
FAX: 510-843-3785
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
+0012023320905 UCS DC
417 P03
OCT 08 '97 15:28
UNION OF
CONCERNED
SCIENTISTS
World Scientists' Call for Action
at the Kyoto Climate Summit
Addendum
September 29, 1997
Additional Signatories:
A. Berbich, Morocco
Mildred Cohn, USA
Harold Kalant, Canada
Riccardo Giacconi, Germany
Alberto Antionio Giesecke, Peru
Sir Andrew Huxley, UK (Nobel laureate)
M. Philip Langleben, Canada
Manuel de Jesus Limonta Vidal, Cuba
Pamela Matson, USA
Federico Mayor, France
Riazuddin, Saudi Arabia
V.K. Prest, Canada
Harold A. Scheraga, USA
Ralph O. Slayter, USA
Paul P.S. Teng, Philippines
Wim J. Wolff, Netherlands
Total Number of Signatories as of Sept. 29, 1997: 1,512
Countries Represented: 63
Nobel Laureates: 103, including 98 of the 171 living Nobel
Prize winners in the sciences
US National Medal of Science winners: 60
PRINTED ONRECTCL PAPER
+0012023320905 UCS DC
417 P05
OCT
08
'97
15:29
World Scientists' Call for Action
at the Kyoto Climate Summit
Five years ago, in the World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, 1600 of the world's senior scientists
sounded an unprecedented warning:
Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environ-
ment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices
put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant
and animal kingdoms.
Addressed to political, industrial, religious, and scientific leaders, the Warning demonstrated that
the scientific community had reached a consensus that grave threats imperil the future of human-
ity and the global environment. However, over four years have passed, and progress has been
woefully inadequate. Some of the most serious problems have worsened. Invaluable time has been
squandered because so few leaders have risen to the challenge.
The December 1997 Climate Summit in Kyoto, Japan, presents a unique opportunity. The
world's political leaders can demonstrate a new commitment to the protection of the environ-
ment. The goal is to strengthen the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change by agreeing
to effective controls on human practices affecting climate.
This they can and must do, primarily by augmenting the Convention's voluntary measures with
legally binding commitments to reduce industrial nations' emissions of heat-trapping gases signifi-
cantly below 1990 levels in accordance with a near-term timetable. Over time, developing nations
must also be engaged in limiting their emissions. Developed and developing nations must cooper-
ate to mitigate climatic disruption. The biosphere is a seamless web.
Completion of an effective treaty at Kyoto would address one of the most serious threats to the
planet and to future generations. It would set a landmark precedent for addressing other grave
environmental threats, many linked to climate change. It would demonstrate that the world's
leaders have now recognized, in deeds and words, their responsibility for stewardship of the earth.
The stark facts carry a clear signal:
There is only one responsible choice-to act now.
We, the signers of this declaration, urge all government leaders to demonstrate a new commit-
ment to protecting the global environment for future generations. The important first step is to
join in completing a strong and meaningful Climate Treaty at Kyoto. We encourage scientists
and citizens around the world to hold their leaders accountable for addressing the global warm-
ing threat. Leaders must take this first step to protect future generations from dire prospects
that would result from failure to meet our responsibilities toward them.
+0012023320905
UCS
DC
417 P06
OCT
08
'97
15:29
The web of Environmental Effects
Atmospheric Disruption
Markets undervalue ecosystems worldwide and
Predictions of global climatic change are becoming
inflict few penalties against practices that do long-
more confident. A broad consensus among the
term environmental and resource damage. Political
world's climatologists is that there is now "a discern-
leadership must introduce incentives that reward
ible human influence on global climate."
sound practices.
Climate change is projected to raise sea levels,
Water Scarcity and Food Security
threatening populations and ecosystems in coastal
Humanity now uses over one-half of the total
regions. Warmer temperatures will lead to a more
accessible freshwater runoff. Freshwater is the
vigorous hydrologic cycle, increasing the prospects
scarcest resource in the Middle East and in North
for more intense rainfall, floods, or droughts in some
Africa. Efforts to husband freshwater are not
regions. Human health may be damaged by greater
succeeding there, in East Asia, or in the Pacific.
exposure to heat waves and droughts, and by
encroachment of tropical diseases to higher laritudes.
Global food production now appears to be outpaced
by growth in consumption and population. There is
The developing world is especially vulnerable to
broad agreement that food demand will double by
damage from climatic disruption because it is already
2030. Most land suitable for agriculture is already in
under great stress and has less capacity to adapt.
production. Sub-Saharan Africa's increase in agricul-
tural production is one-third less than its population
Climate Change: Linkages and Further Damage
growth. The region now produces 80 percent of
Destructive logging and deforestation for agriculture
what it consumes, and per capita production is
continue to wreak havoc on the world's remaining
declining. Projections indicate that demand for food
cropical forests. The burning of the Amazonian rain
in Asia will exceed the supply by 2010.
forests continues largely unabated. Other forests in
developed and developing nations are under heavy
Thus, food consumption levels in many countries
pressure. Destruction of forests greatly amplifies soil
are likely to remain totally inadequate for good
erosion and water wastage, is a major source of loss
nutrition. Widespread undernutrition will persist
of species, and undermines the environment's natural
unless extraordinary measures are taken to ensure
ability to store carbon. It releases additional carbon
food for all, measures not now even contemplated by
to the atmosphere, thereby enhancing global
governments. Climate change is likely to exacerbate
warming.
these food problems by adversely affecting water
supplies, soil conditions, temperature tolerances, and
Fossil-fueled energy use is climbing, both in indus-
growing seasons.
trial nations and in the developing world, adding to
atmospheric carbon. Efforts to enhance energy
Destruction of Species
conservation and improve efficiency are much
Climate change will accelerate the appalling pace at
hindered by low energy costs and by perverse incen-
which species are now being liquidated, especially in
tives that encourage waste. Without firm commit-
vulnerable ecosystems. One-fourth of the known
ments, most industrial nations will not meet the
species of mammals are threatened, and half of these
carbon-emission goals they agreed to at the 1992 Rio
may be gone within a decade. Possibly one-third of
conference. The transition to renewable, non-fossil-
all species may be lost before the end of the next
carbon-based energy sources is feasible but is not in
century.
sight for lack of aggressive political will.
Biodiversity gives stability to the ecosystems that we
The insurance industry has recognized the risks
are so dependent on, enhances their productivity,
posed by climate change. Leading economists have
and provides an important source of new foods,
identified viable policies for reducing these risks.
medicines, and other products.
Sponsored by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Two Brattle Square, Cambridge. MA 02238-9105: 617-547-5552.
Princed on recycled paper
+0012023320905
UCS
DC
417 P07
OCT
08
'97
30
Selected Prominent Signatories
to the
World Scientists' Call for Action
Nobel Laureates
David M. Lee, USA. Physics 1996
Philip W. Anderson, USA. Physics 1977
Yuan T. Lee, Taiwan. Chemistry 1986
Kenneth J. Arrow, USA. Economics 1972
Jean-Marie Lehn, France. Chemistry 1987
Julius Axelrod, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1970
Wassily Leontief, USA. Economics 1973
David Baltimore, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
Rita Levi-Montalcini, Italy. Physiology/Medicine 1986
Georg J. Bednorz, Switzerland. Physics 1987
Edward B. Lewis, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1995
Baruj Benacerraf, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1980
William N. Lipscomb, USA. Chemistry 1976
Hans A. Bethe, USA. Physics 1967
Rudolph A. Marcus, USA. Chemistry 1992
J. Michael Bishop, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1989
Simon van der Meer, Switzerland. Physics 1984
James W. Black, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1988
R Bruce Merrifield, USA. Chemistry 1984
Konrad E. Bloch, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1964
Hartmut Michel, Germany. Chemistry 1988
Nicolaas Bloembergen, USA. Physics 1981
Cesar Milstein, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1984
Thomas R. Cech, USA. Chemistry 1989
Mario J. Molina, USA. Chemistry 1995
Stanley Cohen, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1986
Ben Mottelson, Denmark. Physics 1975
Elias James Corey, USA. Chemistry 1990
Joseph E. Murray, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
John W. Cornforth, UK. Chemistry 1975
Daniel Nathans, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1978
James W. Cronin, USA. Physics 1980
Louis Néel, France. Physics 1970
Paul J. Crutzen, Germany. Chemistry 1995
Erwin Neher, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1991
Jean Dausser, France. Physiology/Medicine 1980
Marshall W. Nirenberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1968
Hans G. Dehmelt, USA. Physics 1989
Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Germany. Physiology/
Johann Deisenhofer, USA. Chemistry 1988
Medicine 1995
Peter C. Doherry, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1996
Douglas D. Osheroff, USA. Physics 1996
Renato Dulbecco, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
George E. Palade, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1974
Christian R. de Duve, Belgium. Physiology/Medicine
Max F. Perurz, UK. Chemistry 1962
1974
John Polanyi, Canada. Chemistry 1986
Manfred Eigen, Germany Chemistry 1967
Ilya Prigogine, Belgium. Chemistry 1977
Gertrude B. Elion, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1988
Norman F. Ramsey, USA. Physics 1989
Richard R. Ernst, Switzerland. Chemistry 1991
Burton Richter, USA. Physics 1976
Leo Esaki, Japan. Physics 1973
Richard J. Roberts, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1993
Edmond H. Fischer, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
Martin Rodbell, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1994
Ernst Otto Fischer, Germany Chemistry 1973
Heinrich Rohrer, Switzerland. Physics 1986
Val L. Fitch, USA. Physics 1980
Joseph Rotblat, UK. Peace 1995
Jerome I. Friedman, USA. Physics 1990
F. Sherwood Rowland, USA. Chemistry 1995
Donald A. Glaser, USA. Physics 1960
Bengt Samuelsson, Sweden. Physiology/Medicine 1982
Sheldon L. Glashow, USA. Physics 1979
Frederick Sanger, UK. Chemistry 1958, 1980
Herbert A. Hauptman, USA. Chemistry 1985
Arthur L. Schawlow, USA. Physics 1981
Dudley Herschbach, USA. Chemistry 1986
Glenn T. Seaborg, USA. Chemistry 1951
Antony Hewish, UK Physics 1974
Herbert A. Simon, USA. Economics 1978
Roald Hoffmann, USA. Chemistry 1981
Richard E. Smalley, USA. Chemistry 1996
Godfrey Hounsfield, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1979
Michael Smith, Canada. Chemistry 1993
David H. Hubel. USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
Jack Steinberger, Switzerland. Physics 1988
Robert Huber, Germany. Chemistry 1988
Henry Taube, USA. Chemistry 1983
Jerome Karle, USA. Chemistry 1985
Richard E. Taylor, USA. Physics 1990
Henry W. Kendall, USA. Physics 1990
E. Donnall Thomas, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
John Kendrew, UK. Chemistry 1962
Samuel C. C. Ting, USA. Physics 1976
Klaus von Klitzing, Germany. Physics 1985
James Tobin, USA. Economics 1981
Aaron Klug, UK. Chemistry 1982
Susumu Tonegawa, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1987
Arthur Kornberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1959
Charles H. Townes, USA. Physics 1964
Edwin G. Krebs, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
Desmond Tutu, South Africa. Peace 1984
Harold Kroto, UK. Chemistry 1996
John Vane, UK Physiology/Medicine 1982
Leon M. Lederman, USA. Physics 1988
Thomas H. Weller, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1954
continued on reverse
Sponsored by the Union of Concerned Scientists, TWO Brattle Square, Cambridge. MA 02238-9105; 617-547-5552.
+0012023320905
UCS
DC
417 P08
OCT
08
'97
15:31
Torsten N. Wiesel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
Sir Aaron Klug, President, The Royal Society (UK)
Robert W. Wilson, USA. Physics 1978
Gustavo Kouri, Vice-President, Cuban Academy of
Rolf M. Zinkernagel, Swirzerland. Physiology/Medicine
Sciences
1996
Torvard Laurent, Former President, Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences
Crafoord Laureates
N. P. Laverov, Vice-President, Russian Academy of
Vladimir 1. Arnold, France. Mathemarics 1982
Sciences
Paul R Ehrlich, USA Biosciences 1990
Jane Lubchenco, Chair, American Association for the
Daniel H. Janzen, USA. Biosciences 1990
Advancement of Science
Eugene P. Odum, USA. Biosciences 1987
Digby McLaren, Former President, Royal Society of
Edward O. Wilson, USA. Biosciences 1990
Canada
Hubert Markl, President, Max Planck Society
Selecred Officers of National and
M. G. K. Menon, Former President, International
International Scientific Academies
Council of Scientific Unions
and Associations
G. A. Mesiatz, Vice-President, Russian Academy of
Carlos Aguirre, President, Bolivian Academy of Sciences
Sciences
Jorge Eduardo Allende, Former President, Chilean
Harold A. Mooney, Secretary General, International
Academy of Sciences
Council of Scientific Unions
A. Andreev, Vice-President, Russian Academy of Sciences
Lawrence A. Mysak, Former President, Academy of
Sir Michael Atiyah, Former President, The Royal Society
Sciences of the Royal Society of Canada
(UK)
Jan S. Nilsson, President, Royal Swedish Academy of
Francisco J. Ayala, Former President, American
Sciences
Association for the Advancement of Science
Erling Norrby, Secretary General, Royal Swedish
Carl Gustaf Bernhard, Former President, Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences
Academy of Sciences
Thomas Odhiambo, President, African Academy of
Bert Bolin, Former Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on
Sciences
Climate Change
Gideon Okelo, Secretary General, African Academy of
Paulo C. Campos, Former President, Philippines
Sciences
National Academy of Science and Technology
Cyril Agodi Onwumechili, Former President, Nigerian
Carlos Chagas, Former President, Latin American
Academy of Sciences
Academy of Sciences
Yuri S. Osipov, President, Russian Academy of Sciences
Satish Dhawan, Former President, Indian Academy of
Abed Peeraly, Vice-President, African Academy of
Sciences
Sciences
Johanna Döbereiner, Vice-President, Brazilian Academy
Chintamani Rao, Vice-President, Third World Academy
of Sciences
of Sciences
Mahdi Elmandjra, Vice-President, African Academy of
Peter H. Raven, Home Secretary, US National Academy
Sciences
of Sciences
T. Geoffrey Flynn, Vice-President, Royal Society of
R. S. Reneman, Chair, Science Division, Royal
Canada
Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
François Gros, Permanent Secretary, French Academy of
Igor Saavedra, Former President, Chilean Academy of
Sciences
Sciences
Lars Gyllensten, Former Chair, The Nobel Foundation
Gian Tommaso Scarascia Mugnozza, Chair, Italian
Mohammed H. A. Hassan, Executive Director, Third
National Academy of Sciences
World Academy of Sciences
Arun Kumar Sharma, Founding President, Federation of
Robert Heap, Vice-President, The Royal Society (UK)
Asian Scientific Academies and Societies
Gunnar Hoppe, Former President, Royal Swedish
Jose Israel Vargas, President, Third World Academy of
Academy of Sciences
Sciences
Sir John Horlock, Vice-President, The Royal Society
Henrik Wallgren, President, Finnish Society of Sciences
(UK)
and Letters
Carl-Olof Jacobsen, Former Secretary-General, Royal
Richard Willems, Vice-President, Estonian Academy of
Swedish Academy of Sciences
Sciences
Alf Johnels, Former President, Royal Swedish Academy
Dongsheng Yan, Senior Adviser, Chinese Academy of
of Sciences
Sciences
Triloki Nath Khoshoo, Former President, Indian
Guang-Zhao Zhou, President, Third World Academy of
National Academy of Sciences
Sciences
Printed on recycled paper
White House Conference on Climate Change:
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Neeva-
10:00 - 10:05
Vice President Gore: Welcome attendees
Tanden
from
10:05 - 10:20
Bill
Antholis
President Clinton: Opening Remarks
10:20 - 11:20
Panel I: The Science of Global Warming and Climate Change
Presentation: John Holdren, Professor, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and the John
F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Head of President's
Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).
Panelists:
Robert Watson, Incoming Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC); Director for Environment, World Bank.
Tom Karl, Senior Scientist, NOAA, National Climatic Data Center.
Diana Liverman, Chair, National Academy of Sciences Committee on Human
Dimensions of Global Change; Director, Latin American Studies Program,
University of Arizona.
Don Wilhite, Director, National Drought Mitigation Center, University of
Nebraska.
11:30-11:45
Vice President Gore: Remarks
11:45-12:45
Panel II: The Role of Technology in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Presentation: Federico Peña, Secretary of Energy.
Panelists:
Tom Casten, President & CEO, Trigen Energy Corporation.
Michael Bonsignore, President and CEO, Honeywell Corporation.
Mason Willrich, CEO, EnergyWorks.
Kurt Yeager, President, Electric Power Research Institute.
Larry Papay, Bechtel Corporation
1:00-2:00
Lunch: Breakout Discussions with the Cabinet
2:15-2:30
First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton: Remarks
2:30-3:30
Panel III: The Kyoto Conference and U.S. National Interests
Presentation: Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State.
Panelists:
James D. Wolfensohn, President, World Bank.
Richard Schmalensee, Professor of Economics and Management,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Director of MIT Center for
Energy and Environmental Policy Research; member of
Council of Economic Advisers, 1989-91.
Daniel Yergin, President, Cambridge Energy Research Associates; author of "The
Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power," winner of the Pulitzer Prize.
E. Linn Draper, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, American
Electric Power.
Fred Krupp, Executive Director, Environmental Defense Fund.
Mae Jemison, President, Jemison Group, Inc. and Jemison Institute for Advancing
Technology in Developing Countries at Dartmouth University. Former NASA
astronaut.
Jessica Tuchman Mathews, President, Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace.
3:30-4:30
Panel IV: Climate Change Policy and the U.S. Economy
Presentation: Larry Summers, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury.
Panelists:
Robert Repetto, Vice President and Senior Economist, World Resources Institute.
Co-author, "The Costs of Climate Protection: A Guide for the Perplexed."
William Nordhaus, Whitney Griswold Professor of Economics, Yale University.
Author of "Efficient Use of Energy Resources," "Managing the Global Commons."
Robert Stavins, Professor of Public Policy and Chair of Environment and Natural
Resources Program, the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University.
John Sweeney, President, AFL-CIO.
Richard Sandor, Chairman & Chief Executive, Centre Financial Products Limited;
Vice-Chair of Chicago Board of Trade.
'97 -4:03
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 5, 1997
White House Conference on Climate Change
DATE:
October 6, 1997
LOCATION: Georgetown University (Gaston Hall)
TIME:
10:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
FROM:
Todd Stern
I. PURPOSE
To engage in a substantive discussion of global climate change science and policy with key
stakeholders.
Objectives for the Conference: (1) To enhance the basic national understanding of the climate
change issue by providing a clear articulation of the science and by presenting the key aspects of
an effective response; (2) to help stimulate a national dialogue on the issue of global climate
change by bringing together the people from around the country who have thought the most
about the issue and who have the greatest amount at stake in any response we choose; (3) to build
support for developing a climate change policy based on the principles of binding targets,
flexible implementation mechanisms, and global participation.
II. BACKGROUND
The White House Conference on Climate Change: The Challenge of Global Warming is the
highlight of your outreach effort on this issue in the lead-up to the Kyoto meeting this December.
The Conference will include some 200 invited guests from a broad range of interests, including
industry, organized labor, the environmental and scientific communities, leading economists,
Congress, and state and local officials. In addition, the Conference will be broadcast live via
satellite to more than 30 locations across the country.
The Conference follows on a series of events that have included you, the Vice President,
members of the Cabinet, and other senior Administration officials. These include the July 24
scientists' roundtable hosted by you and the Vice President; your meetings with business CEO's
and environmental leaders; some twenty events across the country featuring the Cabinet
(including Secretaries Daley, Peña, Slater, Cohen, Babbitt, and Glickman, and Administrator
Browner), numerous meetings with key constituencies hosted by Todd Stern, Katie McGinty,
Gene Sperling, Dan Tarullo, and other members of your climate team; and most recently the
weathercasters event last week.
Still, your opening remarks will be your first opportunity to speak to the American people about
this issue in a substantive way. Interest in global climate change is higher than it has ever been,
both because of the upcoming Kyoto meeting and the efforts you have undertaken over the last
few months. The weathercasters event, for example, scored some 400 television hits nationwide.
While we are not announcing any new policy at the Conference, the audience will be paying very
close attention to everything you say for a hint of how you might be leaning. You should be
careful of any comments that imply support for a particular target and timetable or that seem to
favor a particular implementation regime.
Topics for discussion: After opening remarks from the Vice President and you, the Conference
will be divided into four panel discussions covering the scientific, technological, international,
and economic aspects of climate change. Additionally, there will be lunchtime breakout sessions
where invited guests will have the opportunity to discuss climate change with members of your
Cabinet and other senior White House officials.
You will be present for the first two panels -- the first on the science of climate change and the
second on existing and developing technologies that have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
The Vice President will remain for the two afternoon panels.
At the panel tabs that follow in this book, you will find descriptions and goals of the panels. bios
of the panelists, and a script.
III. PARTICIPANTS
Pre-brief Participants:
Todd Stern, Katie McGinty, Gene Sperling, Dan Tarullo, Jim Steinberg, John Podesta, Erskine
Bowles, Jack Gibbons, Janet Yellen.
Event Participants:
The event will include roughly 200 invited guests from industry, labor, the environmental and
scientific communities, Congress, and state and local governments, as well as leading
economists, authors, and others who bring substantive knowledge to the issue. A complete list is
attached.
Also in attendance will be approximately 230 Georgetown University students along with several
faculty.
IV. PRESS PLAN
The entire conference, with the exception of the lunchtime breakout sessions, will be OPEN
PRESS.
V. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
YOU and the Vice President enter Gaston Hall.
Father O'Donovan welcomes the attendees and introduces the Vice President.
The Vice President makes remarks and introduces YOU.
YOU make opening remarks.
YOU and the Vice President lead a panel discussion on the science of climate change.
YOU and the Vice President lead a panel discussion on technology.
YOU depart.
Breakout sessions during a working lunch hour, led by Cabinet Officers.
Prof. Robert Gallucci introduces the First Lady to open the afternoon session.
The First Lady speaks about Children's Health Day and climate change.
The Vice President leads a panel discussion on international issues.
The Vice President leads a panel discussion on economic issues.
The Vice President makes very brief closing remarks.
A reception is held in the Indian Treaty Room.
VI. ATTACHMENTS
Conference Agenda
Panel by panel descriptions, bios, and scripts
List of Participants (to be forwarded)
Remarks (to be forwarded)
Background
Articles
Labor Union Climate Change Resolutions
AFL-CIO
Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO
Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO
Maritime Trades Department, AFL-CIO
ICEM
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
815 Sixteenth Street, N.W
JOHN J. SWEENEY
RICHARD L. TRUMKA
LINDA CHAVEZ-THOMPSON
INERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
PRESIDENT
SECRETARY-TREASURER
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
Washington, D.C 20006
(202) 637-5000
Albert Shanker
Edward T Hanley
Wayne E Glenn
Ares E Harfield
Vincent R Sombrotto
Gerald W McEntee
William H Bywater
Warm J Boede
AFL
CIO
John T Joyce
Morton Bahr
Robert A. Georgine
Sere Upshaw
Lenore Miller
John J Barry
MA Biller
CONGRESS
ORCANIZATION
Jay Mazur
John N Sturdivant
Frank Hanley
ares J Norton
George J. Kourpias
Ron Carey
Arthur A. Coia
Frank Hurt
Michael Sacco
OF
Glona T Johnson
Douglas H Donty
George F. Becker
Sephen P Yokich
INDUS
Clayola Brown
MA "Mac" Fleming
Carolyn Forrest
TRIAL
J Randolph Babbitt
Pat Friend
Michael Goodwin
Joe L Greene
Sonny Hall
Carroll Haynes
James LaSala
William Lucy
Sumi Haru
Leon Lynch
Doug McCarron
Andrew McKenzie
AL "Mike" Monroe
Arturo S. Rodnguez
Robert A. Scardelletti
Robert E. Wages
Arthur Moore
Jake West
Alfred K. Whilehead
Andrew L. Stem
AFL-CIO Executive Council February 20, 1997 Statement
U.N. CLIMATE CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS
The U.S. government is involved in United Nations negotiations pursuant to the "Berlin
Mandate" for an amendment to the Rio Treaty on Climate Change. The Rio Treaty committed
the United States and other nations to voluntarily stabilize carbon emissions at 1990 levels by the
year 2000. Current negotiations are aimed at mandatory reductions below 1990 levels after the
year 2000.
The Berlin Mandate specifically excludes developing nations from emission reduction
requirements while legally binding the United States to future emission reductions. By
exempting developing nations from any future commitments, the Berlin Mandate ensures that
there will be no meaningful worldwide effort to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon
dioxide.
We believe the parties to the Rio Treaty made a fundamental error when they agreed to
negotiate legally-binding carbon restrictions on the United States and other industrialized
countries, while simultaneously agreeing to exempt high-growth developing countries like
China, Mexico, Brazil and Korea from any new carbon reduction commitments. As much as 60
percent of global carbon emissions are expected to come from such countries in the next few
decades, with China becoming the single-largest emitter in the near future. The exclusion of new
commitments by developing nations under the Berlin Mandate will create a powerful incentive
for transnational corporations to export jobs, capital, and pollution, and will do little or nothing
to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon. Such an uneven playing field will cause the
loss of high-paying U.S. jobs in the mining, manufacturing, transport and other sectors.
Carbon taxes, or equivalent carbon emission trading programs, will raise significantly
electricity and other energy prices to consumers. These taxes are highly regressive and will be
most harmful to citizens who live on fixed incomes or work at poverty-level wages.
As corporations shut down domestic factories, mines and mills as a result of higher energy
1
costs, they will have additional incentives, beyond the search for cheap labor and anti-labor
regulatory regimes, to locate new capacity off-shore, in countries with no carbon reduction
commitments. Carbon emissions, therefore, will be transferred to the developing world along
with the jobs, thus providing no real benefit to the environment.
The U.S. government has not completed a thorough economic analysis of the effects of a
treaty amendment on the U.S. economy, even though U.S. negotiators have been at the
bargaining table for over 18 months and have agreed to a December 1997 deadline for reaching
agreement on this far-reaching-treaty amendment.
The AFL-CIO Executive Council calls upon the responsible agencies of the U.S.
government to provide it and its affiliates with any existing studies of the economic impact of
future treaty obligations and, further, make available the results of the economic modeling effort
currently being undertaken by the government within 30 days of completion.
The AFL-CIO Executive Council further urges that in the ongoing negotiations to amend the
Rio Treaty on climate change, the United States insist upon the incorporation of appropriate
commitments from all nations to reduce carbon emissions; and seek a reduction schedule
compatible with the urgent need to avoid unfair and unnecessary job loss in developed
economies. The President should not accept and the Congress should not ratify any amendment
or protocol that does not meet these standards.
2
PETER S. acicco
PRESIDENT
201-841-7842
JOSEPH 8. UEHLEIN
SECRETURXTREASURER
TC
DEPARTMENT, AFL-610
VICE PRESIDENTS
MORTON 6AHR
IUD Resolution On
PRESIDENT :...
U.N. CLIMATE CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS
JOHN 1. SARRY
PRESIDENT Siv
The United States is involved in United Nations Negotiations pursuant to the
GEORGE BECKER
PRESIDENT
"Berlin Mandate" for an amendment to the Rio Treaty on Climate Change.
MOE BILLER
PRESIDENT see
The Berlin Mandate specifically excludes developing nations from emission
WILLIAM H. BYWATER
PRESIDENT. -
reduction requirements while legally binding the U.S. to future emission reductions.
RON CAREY
PRESIDENT ST
The exclusion of new commitments by developing nations under the Berlin
FRANKW. CARTER
PRESIDENT
Mandate will create an uneven playing field in favor of developing nations such as China,
SUSANV. COWELL
India, Mexico and Brazil in the competition for jobs and economic growth.
nce PRESIDENT: 07
DOUGLAS H. DORITY
PRESIDENT x.v
Such an uneven playing field will cause the loss of high-paying U.S. jobs in the
BARBARA 1 EASTERLIN
mining, utility and manufacturing sectors.
SECRETARY- TREASURER Cirl
SANDRA FELOMAN
Processes which generate carbon emissions will be transferred to the developing
VICE PRESIDENT Fi
world along with the jobs, thus providing little or no real benefit to the environment.
WAYNE E. GLENN
PRESIDENT PU
MICHAEL GCCOWIN
The U.S. government has not completed a thorough economic analysis of the
PRESIDENT. ND
effects of a treaty amendment on the U.S. economy;
FRANK HANLEY
PRESIDENT .11
FRANK HURT
THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED:
PRESIDENT KL!
GLCRIAT. jOHNSON
That the Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO calls upon the Congress
CHAIR WOMEN'S COUNCE
and the President of the United States to refrain from entering into or ratifying any treaty
CHARLES W. JONES
PRESSURE 13
amendment or protocol that causes the loss of U.S. jobs; and
GEORGE 1 KOURPIAS
PRESIDENTIAL
That the U.S. renegotiate the Berlin Mandate to ensure that all nations have
WILLIAM LUCY
SECRETARY- TREASURER **
appropriate commitments to reduce carbon emission to prevent the transfer of jobs and
FRANK a MARTINO
emissions to the developing world.
PRESIDENTICMS
JAY MAZUR
PRESIDENT NITE
Adopted by IUD November 13, 1996
LENORE MILLER
PRESIDENT SAVOSU
JAMES 1 NORTON
PRESIDENT.COM
CECK E. ROBERTS
PRESIDENT UMA
ANDREW L STERN
PRESIDENT SEU
ROBERT L WAGES
PRESIDENT :
815 16TH STREET NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
MK 202-842-7838
TTD
A SENSIBLE AND FAIR POLICY
ON GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS
As the international community takes steps to reduce the levels of greenhouse gases in the
environment, the United States should not be asked to shoulder an unfair level of responsibility that
-would jeopardize our economy and the millions of industrial and transportation jobs it supports. In
1992, the United States signed the Rio Framework Convention on Climate Change which required
a reduction in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by the year 2000. In 1995,
the United States and other parties to the 1992 climate convention agreed in the "Berlin Mandate"
for a process of new negotiations to establish emission reduction goals for the next century. The
Berlin Mandate calls for developed countries, such as the United States, to take the lead in
combating climate change, but excludes developing nations from any new obligations to further
reduce greenhouse emissions.
This double standard means that while global warming is an international problem and that
most of the world's future growth of carbon emissions will come from high-growth countries like
Mexico, China, and Korea, the U.S. is being asked to do more than its fair share. Even more
troubling is the fact that the problem of global warming will not be adequately addressed.
Companies wishing to avoid emission control requirements will simply move their operations to
countries that were able to evade the provisions embodied in the Berlin Mandate.
The United Nations is currently conducting negotiations that will determine the magnitude
of the reductions that the U.S. will have to undertake under the Berlin Mandate and the timetable
required for meeting these objectives. In these negotiations the Clinton Administration is supporting
an emission control program modeled after the 1990 Federal acid rain law. In order to meet the goals
of this program, an increased energy tax on carbon fuels several times larger than all current state
and federal energy taxes combined, or an equivalent permit trading program, would have to be
imposed on consumers of fossil fuels. The negative impact this would have on our economy cannot
be overstated.
It is clear that the use and transportation of coal would be greatly curtailed if not eliminated,
gasoline prices would skyrocket, and the increased cost of basic electricity would be felt in the
production of almost every consumer good. The Department of Commerce has estimated that a
carbon tax sufficient to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% would result in 800,000 jobs lost by the year
2000 and 1.7 million jobs by 2010. An independent research corporation found that 1.4 million
American jobs could be "severely at risk" under a carbon tax of $24 per ton. This includes over
132,000 rail workers, 76,300 transit employees, 157,000 involved in water transportation, and
625,200 aviation workers. The entire economy would be placed at risk with little or no
environmental benefit. Transportation labor is not opposed to reasonable steps that will reduce
greenhouse gases, but we cannot support policies that unfairly harm American workers while
allowing less developed nations to avoid any responsibility for solving this global problem.
TRANSPORTATION TRADES DEPARTMENT. AFL-CIO
IMARITIME
AFL
CIO
MARITIME TRADES DEPARTMENT
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR and CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
815 SIXTEENTH STREET, N.W., SUITE 510
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
(202) 628-6300
FAX: (202) 347-1137
MICHAEL SACCO
WILLIAM F. ZENGA
FRANK PECQUEX
PRESIDENT
VICE PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY-TREASURER
AFFILIATES:
U.N. CLIMATE CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS
Aluminum Brick and Glass Workers
International Union
American Guild of Variety Artists
Federation of Professional Athletes, AFL CIO
The U.S. government is involved in United Nations negotiations
United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America
pursuant to the "Berlin Mandate" for an amendment to the Rio Treaty on
International Union
Climate Change. The Rio Treaty committed the United States and other
International Brotherhood of Bodermakers.
Iron Ship Budders. Blacksmiths,
Forgers and Helpers
nations to voluntarily stabilize carbon emissions at 1990 levels by the year
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
2000. Current negotiations are aimed at mandatory reductions below 1990
Joiners of America
International Chemical Workers Union
Communications Workers of America
levels after the year 2000.
Distillery, Wine and Alixed Workers
International Union AFL CIO/CLC
International Brotherhood or Electrical
Workers
The Berlin Mandate specifically excludes developing nations from
International Union of Elevator Constructors
International Union of Operating Engineers
emission reduction requirements while legally binding the United States to
International Association of Fire Fighters
International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers
future commitments, the Berlin Mandate ensures that there will be no
United Food and Commercial Workers
International Union
meaningful worldwide effort to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of
Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics and Alied Workers
carbon dioxide.
International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC
American Federation of Grain Millers
Graphic Communications International Union
Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees
International Union
We believe the parties to the Rio Treaty made a fundamental error
International Association of Bndge, Structure
and Omemental Iron Workers
when they agreed to negotiate legally-bind carbon restrictions on the
Laborers International Union of
North America
United States and other industrialized countries, while simultaneously
AFL CIO Laundry and Dry Cleaning
International Union
agreeing to exempt high-growth developing countries like China, Mexico,
International Leather Goods. Plastics.
Novelty and Service Workers Union
Brazil and Korea from any new carbon reduction commitments. As much
International Longshoremen
Association, AFL CIO
as 60 percent of global carbon emissions are expected to come from such
International Association of Machinvate
and Aerospace Workers
countries in the next few decades, with China becoming the single-largest
National Manne Engineers Beneficial
Association
emitter in the near future. The exclusion of new commitments by
United Mine Workers of America
International Union of Allied. Novelty and
developing nations under the Berlin Mandate will create a powerful
Production Workers, AFL-CIO
Office and Professional Employees
incentive for transnational corporations to export jobs, capital, and
International Union
International Brotherhood of Painters and
pollution, and will do little or nothing to stabilize atmospheric
Allied Trades
United Paperworkers International Union
concentrations of carbon. Such an uneven playing field will cause the loss
Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons
International Association of the United States
of high-paying U.S. jobs in the mining, manufacturing, transport and other
and Canada
United Association of Journeymen and
sectors.
Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Plpe Fitting Industry of the
United States and Canada
Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union
United Rubber, Cork Linoleum and Plastic
Workers of America
Carbon taxes, or equivalent carbon emission trading programs, will
Seafarers International Union of
North America
raise significantly electricity and other energy prices to consumers. These
Service Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO
taxes are highly regressive and will be most harmful to citizens who live on
Sheet Metal Workers International Association
American Federation of State, County
fixed incomes or work at poverty-level wages.
and Municipal Employees
United Bleekworkers of America
United Textile Workers of America
Transportation . Communications Union
ICEM
International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers'
Climate Change
The nations of the world are involved in the United Nations negotiations
pursuant to the Berlin Mandate for amendment to the Framework Convention
on Climate Change (RIO Treaty).
In view of the far-reaching implications of this Convention, not only for the
future of the planet, but also for the livelihoods of workers involved in the
resource and energy-using industries, and for global economic growth, the
ICEM calls upon the parties to the Framework Convention on Climate
Change to insist upon a treaty amendment that:
1.
Places the highest priority on the needs of workers and consumers who
will shoulder the greatest burdens of efforts to address global climate
change.
2.
Promotes improvements in energy efficiency in all countries, and
provides assistance for this purpose to developing countries.
3.
Includes the protection of existing jobs and the creation of new ones,
and the improvement of living standards in all countries as a critical
goal to be met in any climate treaty.
4.
Provides adequate time for both developed and developing countries to
meet the needs of the environment and the needs of working people.
Statement of Cecil E. Roberts
President
United Mine Workers of America
on the
DRI and EPI Economic and Employment Impact Analyses
September 17, 1997
Today we are releasing the results of two economic and employment studies of climate
change policies. These studies, conducted by DRI McGraw Hill (DRI), the same economic
forecasting firm used by the Clinton and Bush administrations, and the Economic Policy Institute
(EPI), a well known Washington-based economic think tank, should give pause to the
administration and its negotiators in the Berlin Mandate process.
Background
As you know, the U.S. is participating in negotiations pursuant to the Berlin Mandate to
amend the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, also known as the Rio Treaty.
Negotiations are scheduled to conclude in December at a meeting in Kyoto, Japan. We believe
the Berlin Mandate is a flawed instrument for dealing with climate issues. It is flawed because it
specifically exempts more than half of the world's future emissions from any controls, while
asking for substantial sacrifices from American workers and consumers. And as currently
structured, it will do nothing to address the climate change issue.
Job Losses
The job losses that are likely to result from carbon reduction efforts are staggering. DRI
projects that a policy aimed at reducing emissions in 2010 to 1990 levels will cost nearly 1.6
million jobs in 2005. Job losses will hit every region of the country and every industrial sector
(with the exception of the federal government). For most industries and regions there is no
recovery throughout the forecast period, which runs to 2020. The coal industry is devastated, but
numerous other industries are hard hit-110,000 jobs lost in the transportation and public utility
sector, 199,000 jobs lost in the manufacturing sector, 426,000 jobs lost in the services sector and
182,000 jobs lost in state and local governments as the tax base erodes.
For a policy to reduce emission 10% below 1990 levels by 2010, DRI projects the loss of
nearly 2.3 million jobs by 2005, increasing to a high of 2.7 million lost American jobs.
Economic Output and Trade
DRI projects that climate policies will reduce U.S. gross domestic product 1.8% to 2.9%
during the forecast period. This means that the U.S. economy will lose over $200 billion
annually at the peak of the phase-in effects in 2005-2010. Climate policies limited to developed
nations are also likely to significantly increase the U.S. trade deficit. EPI notes that the DRI
model may underestimate the trade flow implications of such policies. EPI estimates that real
imports are likely to increase substantially and real exports are likely to decline. EPI estimates
that this could result in an increase of up to $240 billion in the U.S. trade deficit. If this occurs,
EPI estimates that job losses could be as high as 2-4 million.
Wage Growth
The EPI report notes that carbon reduction policies are likely to depress wage growth, as
higher wage jobs are knocked out of the economy and only partially substituted with lower wage
jobs. EPI estimates that future wage growth could be cut by 50%. This will exacerbate the
stagnation and decline in real wages that American workers have endured for the last two
decades and will tend to increase the already wide income disparity in our economy.
Energy Prices
The policies analyzed by DRI were based upon the U.S. proposal for a carbon permit
trading scheme modeled on the U.S. acid rain sulfur dioxide trading program. DRI estimates that
carbon permit prices would have to be $180-190 per ton (1995 dollars) in 2010 to reduce
emissions to 1990 levels, and would rise to $270-280 per ton in 2020.
The carbon permits will act like a carbon tax, raising the price of energy based on its
carbon content. Coal, with the highest carbon content of all fossil fuels, will be taxed the
highest. But all fossil fuels are projected by DRI to increase in price. Gasoline prices are
projected to increase $0.41-$0.64 per gallon. Electricity prices will increase over 11 cents per
kilowatthour and natural gas prices will increase $1.14 per therm (100,000 Btu). For an average
American family these energy price increases will add nearly $900 per year to the annual
household energy bill by 2005, increasing to about $2,200 per household by 2020.
Energy taxes are highly regressive by nature. Families, regardless of income, must heat
and cool their homes, cook their food and travel to work. For example, the U.S. Department of
Energy estimates that a family with an annual income of less than $10,000 still spends nearly
$1,000 per year in energy costs in the home. Energy taxes, or equivalent carbon permit schemes,
will be crushing for low-income workers and seniors living on fixed incomes.
Conclusion
The upcoming U.N. climate treaty is All Pain and No Gain for American workers and
consumers. It is a bad deal for American families, and will provide a perverse incentive for
American corporations to relocate their operations abroad. That is why the labor movement has
taken positions warning the administration to avoid signing a treaty amendment that harms
workers, consumers and our economy. We have had unanimous votes on climate policies at the
Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO, the Transportation Trades Department, the
Maritime Trades Department, and the full AFL-CIO Executive Council. Because of concerns
about increased energy prices, the National Council of Senior Citizens (NCSC) has adopted
similar positions. The fear that we may be on the verge of signing a bad deal also motivated the
Senate in July to adopt unanimously a resolution calling on the administration to insist that all
nations participate in any new commitments and that any proposed treaty not harm the American
economy. The studies we have released today clearly show that efforts to reduce greenhouse
gases in the short time frames being discussed will have significant negative effects in terms of
lost jobs, higher consumer energy prices, and higher trade deficits. I repeat, this is a bad deal for
American families.
For those who question the science of climate change, this is a dumb idea. For those who
believe the science is compelling, this is a dumb idea. Developed nations alone cannot address
this issue, and we believe developing nations will be less likely to join a treaty after we have
built in trade and economic advantages for those nations through a flawed treaty. The U.S.
should not compound the flaws of the Berlin Mandate by signing a flawed treaty in Kyoto.
these issues using a model developed by DRI/McGraw-Hill (1997). The results of this modeling
exercise are analyzed and contrasted with a recent administration study of the costs of climate
change policies (Interagency Analytic Team 1997). DRI/McGraw-Hill also prepared the most
extensively cited model used in the IAT report. We refer here to that earlier effort as the IAT
model.
There have been a number of surveys of the cost of climate change policies.³ We rely on
some of these studies in our analysis. This report contributes an analysis of the distribution of the
costs of climate change policies across society to the debate. We make no assessment of the
potential benefits of GHG policies, in terms of potential risks or damages that could be avoided,
nor do we take a position on the advisability of adopting any further policies to restrict GHG
emissions. However, we recommend that if such policies are implemented, two specific,
additional measures regarding adjustment assistance and border taxes are needed to limit their
disruptive effects on the economy, and on the lives of American workers.
We begin by describing the baseline forecasts for the economy (business as usual case) and
then review the overall effects of potential GHG policies on output (GDP) and consumption,
including a comparison of the DRI/McGraw-Hill (1997) results with those of the IAT. The next
section considers the effects of these policies on key sectors of the economy, including
employment, wages, profits, and foreign trade. We then examine GHG policy-effects on
industries and regions of the economy. The paper concludes with a discussion of policy
implications and areas for future research.
The Macroeconomic Impacts of GHG Policies
-2-
The model used in this study is'the DRI/McGraw-Hill macro-economic model. This is a
short-run forecasting model with an input-output-based structure. Some analysts have criticized -
the use of the DRI model to analyze issues such as GHG policies because of its short-run
orientation, arguing that the policies proposed should be designed to reduce energy use and
carbon emissions over the next century.⁴ However, the policies discussed in IAT (1997) would
take effect in the year 2000 and be phased in over 10 years. They would have substantial short-
run impacts on economic output, which would exceed the costs identified in the other long-run
models used in the IAT report. s Therefore, it is appropriate to examine these adjustment costs
when considering the distributional effects of GHG policies.
Many models have estimated the costs of stabilizing the emissions of carbon, on a national
basis, at 1990 levels by the year 2010. This scenario has become the standard of comparison for
modeling of the costs of GHG policies. The IAT chose this scenario as a baseline, and also ran a
number of "sensitivity-test" scenarios which varied key assumptions, including a range of targets
between 90% and 110% of 1990 level emissions in the year 2010. Most scenarios assume that
emissions are held constant after the target is achieved in 2010. The European Union has
proposed emission reductions of 15% of 1990 levels by 2010 as a starting point for the the
Kyoto-round negotiations. It is also important to point out that ultimate stabilization of
atmospheric CO₂ may require further reductions in global emission levels beyond these targets,
with attendant increases in the costs of GHG policies.⁶ Comparison of cases 1 and 2 suggests that
the costs of emissions control increase exponentially. Therefore adjustment costs could continue
and expand if future COP meetings results in additional, increasingly restrictive agreements to
reduce GHG emissions in the Annex-I countries, as seems likely.
-3-
Baseline forecasts
DRI/McGraw-Hill (1997) assumes that real GDP growth will average two percent per
year between 2000 and 2010, and 1.5% per year thereafter. GDP growth declines after 2010
because the rate of growth of the labor force declines from about one percent per year between
2000 and 2010 to 0.5% per year thereafter, as the baby boom generation begins to exit the labor
force. The energy intensity of the economy is forecast to decline by one percent per year
throughout the forecast period. Carbon emissions therefore increase 1.3 percent per year between
2000 and 2010 and 0.8% per year thereafter.
Total carbon emissions in the baseline case are 1,746 million metric tons (MMT) in 2010
and 1,894 MMT in 2020. Actual emissions in 1990 in the U.S. were 1323 MMT, according to
DRI/McGraw-Hill (1997).⁷ Therefore total emissions in the baseline case grow 32.0% and
43.2%, respectively, in 2010 and 2020 in this model. These are the amounts by which carbon
emissions would have to be reduced to stabilize emissions at 1990 levels. 8 Some fuels, such as
natural gas and petroleum, emit much less carbon per unit of energy released, so energy use
would not have to fall by this amount if fuel switching were to occur (as is assumed in the DRI
model).
Policy Scenarios
It is assumed that a system of tradeable carbon emission permits is announced and
implemented beginning in 2000. The number of permits in circulation is reduced each year from
2000 to 2010, until the emissions target is achieved. Permits are not traded internationally, but
are tradeable within the domestic market, to facilitate adjustment at least possible cost. Three
cases are analyzed⁹:
-4-
Case 1:
(Grandfathered Permits). Allowance are issued to industry at no cost.
Emissions are stabilized at 1990 levels in 2010.
Case 2:
(Grandfathered Permits, 90% of '90 Emissions). Allowances are issued
to industry at no cost. Emissions stabilized at 90% of 1990 levels in 2010.
Case 3:
(Auction, Deficit Reduction) Allowances auctioned by U.S. Government,
no revenue recycling. Emissions stabilized at 1990 levels in 2010.
Carbon prices range from $180 to $200 per ton in 2010 and $270 to $320 per ton 2020 in
DRI/McGraw-Hill (1997), as shown in Table 1. These prices have very different effects on
different types of fuel, as noted above. Gasoline prices increase only 31.5% to 49.2% in 2010, for
example ($.41 to $.63/gallon). However, coal prices rise much more rapidly, 450% to 680%,
because coal has a much higher carbon content per unit of energy, as noted above. Natural Gas,
which is one of the most carbon-efficient fuels, rises substantially more in price than gasoline
because fuel switching sharply increases demand, and capacity is slow to respond.
Energy prices in the IAT draft report are compared in the bottom two sections of Table 1.
The base case prices are nearly identical in the two studies. However, carbon prices are much
lower in the IAT scenarios. There are two reasons for this. First, the IAT model assumes slightly
higher baseline improvements in energy efficiency (1.25% VS. 1.0% per year). Therefore, carbon
emissions in 2020, for example, are projected to be 1805 MMT in the IAT base case, versus
1894 MMT in DRI/McGraw-Hill (1997), a difference of about 5%. Second, and more
importantly, the IAT report apparently assumes larger price and substitution elasticities than
DRI/McGraw-Hill (1997). The IAT report has been criticized because "The price elasticities for
energy demands need further explanation. Some very rough calculations suggest that they may
-5-
be on the high side. 10" These comments suggest that the estimates in DRI/McGraw-Hill (1997)
may be more reliable than those developed for the IAT."
Effects on Output and Consumption
Figure 1 shows that in the cases considered here, GHG policies could have significant
costs for the economy, especially in the next ten to fifteen years. Policies designed to stabilize
U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases at 1990 levels in 2010 - the least restrictive policies now
being discussed for the Kyoto negotiations - could reduce the level of national output by 1.8 to
2% in the short run. If GHG emissions are reduced by 10% in 2010, then the short-run costs
increase sharply, to 2.9% of GDP and 3.6% of consumption. The maximum impact occurs in
2007 in all three scenarios, seven years after the permit system begins to be phased in, but three
years before emissions are fully reduced to the target level. Output falls because of the increase in
energy prices, shown in Table 1 above, which depresses consumption and investment spending.
Overall inflation rates, shown in Figure 2, rise by 0.25 to 1 percentage points during the
initial implementation period. By 2020, in the grandfathered permits cases, the cumulative effect
of these price effects causes a 7% to 9% increase in the level of the GDP price deflator, relative
to the base case, because businesses will pass along the cost of permits to their customers. This
increase in the level of the GDP deflator is permanent, even though inflation returns to base case
levels by 2015.
If permits are auctioned by the government, the policy will have a more depressing effect
on output, because the permit fees will cause a sharp, permanent increase in government savings.
The effect of the permits is similar to that of a tax increase. Inflation increases in the short run,
and then falls below the base case after 2008, reflecting the permanent suppression of demand
-6-
caused by this policy.
In all three scenarios, investment recovers and is increased as a share of GDP, relative to
-
the base case, as shown in Figure 10, below. Firms and consumers increase their spending on
capital goods to increase energy efficiency, effectively substituting capital for energy and
accelerating the replacement of the existing capital stock. For example, total purchases of
vehicles in 2020 in the three policy scenarios are 200,000 to 500,000 units higher than in the base
case. As a result of the increased investment, the available stock of effective non-residential
capital increases steadily throughout the forecast period, as shown in Table A, above. By 2020, it
is 85 to 10% higher than in the base case.
The increase in investment is effectively financed through a forced increase in national
savings in the three policy scenarios. If the permits are simply granted to businesses, free of
charge, then business revenues and corporate profits will increase dramatically. Part of these
retained earnings will then be available to finance increased investment spending. Savings through
the federal budget also increase in all three models, after an initial adjustment period. If permits
are grandfathered, then corporate profit tax revenues will increase. If the permits are auctioned
by the government, then the revenues will flow directly into the treasury. The model assumes in
all cases that the government uses the increased revenues to reduce the deficit or, if there is a
surplus, to reduce the stock of outstanding federal debt, increasing the effective rate of
government savings.
The increase in national savings and investment that would result from a system of energy
permit sales is a key element in all models of the effects of GHG policies. In the long run, the
increase in savings and investment causes GDP to be higher in 2020 than in the base case, in all
-7-
three scenarios, as shown in Figure 1. Furthermore, GDP is growing 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points
faster than in the base case in all three scenarios in 2020. Hence, the stimulus to investment
provided by GHG policies could slightly increase the underlying rate of growth of the domestic
economy, in the long run. However, the assumption that permit sales would increase national
savings is highly questionable, for reasons discussed below. In the absence of the stimulus to
savings and investment, GDP levels and growth rates would be lower throughout the forecast
period.
Figure 3 demonstrates that the increase in real energy prices has a bigger effect on
consumption than it does on output. GHG policies have a larger impact on consumption than on
GDP for at least two reasons. First, a larger share of output is devoted to investment, for reasons
explained above, and thus consumption must decline as a share of national income. Second, the
increase in energy prices will force consumers to reduce real purchases of other goods, holding
everything else constant (unless overall demand for energy is price elastic, which is not the case in
most models).
Consumption losses reach a peak of 2.2 to 3.6 percent in 2007, relative to the base case,
as shown in Figure 2. Consumption also recovers, following the GDP path in figure 1. However,
overall consumption levels remain about one-half percent below the base case in 2020 in all three
scenarios, despite the increased levels of output in that year, reflecting the increase in savings
discussed above.
Comparisons with IAT Estimates.
The IAT estimates generated much smaller projections of the losses than would result
under similar policy scenarios. For example, Figure 4 compares predicted changes in total
-8-
consumption from the base case, assuming grandfathered permits in both the IAT and the
DRI/McGraw-Hill (1997) models. The maximum loss in the IAT model, of 1.4%, occurs two
years earlier (2006) and is only 55% as large as the maximum loss in the DRI/McGraw-Hill
(1997) model of 2.5% of base consumption. The difference between the two forecasts reflects
the two key differences in energy forecasts: 1) lower base case energy use in the IAT model; and
2) higher price elasticities in that model.
The Reliability of Critical Assumptions
There are substantial economic and practical reasons to question some of the assumptions
underlying both the IAT and the DRI/McGraw-Hill (1997) models. One key assumption concerns
they way that revenues from the sale of permits are used in the economy. Figure 5, which
contrasts two scenarios from the IAT report, illustrates the effects of different ways of handling
permit revenues on total consumption in the U.S. If permit revenues are recycled to consumers,
rather than being used for deficit reduction, losses to consumers will not fade away over time.¹²
In this case, consumption will fall and remain at a lower level throughout the forecast period.
Given the political realities of the federal budget processes, it is highly unlikely that permit
revenues of the type envisioned here would be used to reduce the budget deficit or the federal
debt. For example, forecasts in mid-1997 that the federal budget could achieve a small surplus
within the next few years if the economy continues to grow at its current pace have generated a
wide range of proposals for using projected revenues for new tax cuts, and/or public spending
increases. Therefore, national savings are unlikely to increase as assumed in these models.
Higher levels of federal spending for consumption purposes, for example for defense
spending, will not stimulate growth in the way envisioned in the DRI model. Thus the permits are
-9-
not likely to stimulate as much growth in GDP. nor as rapid a recovery, as is forecast in either the
DRI/McGraw-Hill (1997) or IAT (1997). On the other hand, some type of public investment, in
areas such a R&D, educational programs and other types of public infrastructure, could have an
even larger impact on productivity and economic growth rates than the private investment
spending that drives the DRI/McGraw-Hill results. Therefore, the ultimate effects of GHG
policies on the economy will be heavily effected by the ways in which the resulting revenues are
utilized.
For these reasons it is unlikely that all of the GHG revenue collected by the government
would go to deficit reduction. Some federal revenues will probably be returned to consumers
(through tax cuts) or otherwise result in new public consumption expenditures. While tax cuts or
other expenditures could stimulate the economy, they could not fully offset the depressing effects
of GHG policies. Therefore, output is likely to fall with GHG policies, in the long run, in contrast
with the case reviewed here.¹³ Figure 4 shows that consumption will fall when the permit system
is put in place in 2000, recover slightly, and then begin to decline again. The sustained decline is
caused by the increase in the cost of carbon permits and energy prices shown in Table 1, above. 14
The increased cost of energy puts an increasing drag on the rate of growth of economic output.
This is the most important long-run cost of GHG policies.
The initial decline in consumption shown in Figure 4 is smaller if all the revenues are
returned to consumers, perhaps through reductions in income or other labor taxes (such as the
social security tax). This "revenue neutral" policy has a less depressing effect on total output and
consumption than the grandfathered permits policy. Losses begin to increase in 2015 because of
the long-run effects of higher energy prices. The losses and distortion effects shown in Figure 4
-10-
would increase with the size of the effective carbon tax. Permit fees as large as those estimated in
DRI/McGraw-Hill (1997, $180 to $320 per ton, Table 1 above) would have proportionately
larger effects on consumption than the IAT cases (in which permit fees are only $95 per ton in
2010 and $125 in 2020).
One final economic reason for questioning the results of both the IAT and DRI/McGraw-
Hill (1997) is that investment may not respond in the way assumed in the models. In each case
(except for the auction, 100% to consumer case shown in Figure 4), it is assumed that increases in
savings by the business and government sector stimulate a proportionate increase in domestic
investment. 15 However, even though corporate retained earnings would rise sharply if permits
were grandfathered to existing energy users, there is no guarantee that the resulting excess cash
would be invested in the U.S. Investment opportunities elsewhere in the world could be more
attractive, particularly if there are parts of the world not subject to GHG policies (as discussed
below). In fact, recent empirical research has shown that in the long run, about one-quarter of
any given change in savings has flown out of the U.S. in the past. This ratio could change in the
future, as well. For these reasons, investment (and therefore GDP and consumption) might not
receive the stimulus expected in the IAT and DRI/McGraw-Hill (1997) models even if savings are
increased. In fact, increased corporate earnings could accelerate capital flight problems that are
discussed below.
On balance, we expect that GHG policies designed to stabilize emissions at 1990 levels
will reduce consumption by at least $50 to $100 billion per year, on average, between 2000 and
2020. Losses are likely to continue and grow in the future because the policies will reduce the
economy's potential growth rate, because permit revenues are likely to be spent on tax cuts or
-11-
new public expenditures, and because savings and investment will be diverted to other countries
because of the effects of GHG policies on economic incentives. However, the Kyoto negotiations
also need to consider the distribution of the benefits and the costs of these policies.
Distributional Effects of GHG Policies
Since 1973, U.S. production workers have experienced a steady decline in their real wages
and earnings, as shown in Figure 6. After rising steadily at an average rate of $0.14 per hour (in
$1982) through 1973, real compensation began to decline steadily thereafter at a rate of $.035 per
hour. This decline in production worker incomes contrasts sharply with the continued growth in
real hourly earnings of the top twenty percent of the labor force, which has been maintained
throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Earnings inequality, the gap between the top and bottom classes
of wages earners, has increased sharply as a result. For example, the ratio of the top to the
bottom deciles of workers has increased from 3.7 to 4.5 since 1973, an increase of more than
20%.
Wages have been eroding and income inequality has been increasing for a number of
reasons, including declining rates of unionization, falling real values of the minimum wage,
deregulation and increased rates of immigration. Rapid growth in foreign trade and investment
are also important causes of declining real wages (Mishel, Bernstein and Schmitt, 1997). Unless
these issues are considered in the development of GHG policies, those measures will exacerbate
the effects of globalization on American workers. Recent reports suggest that trade may be
responsible for at least 20 to 25% of the increase in U.S. income inequality in this period (Tyson,
1997). 16 With these facts in mind, we turn next to an analysis of the effects of GHG policies on
labor and other factors of production, and then examine the effects of GHG policies on trade in
-12-
some detail.
The effects of GHG policies on employment in DRI/McGraw-Hill (1997) are illustrated in-
Figure 7. As GDP and consumption fall after the permit system is introduced, unemployment
(not shown) rises initially and peaks (relative to the base case) in 2006. Overall, unemployment
(not shown) is increased by 0.6 to 1.1 percentage points in. To put this in perspective, in the
1990-1991 recession in the U.S., unemployment increased by 2.2 percentage points from its 1989
low of 5.3 percent. Thus, the effects of GHG policies on unemployment are projected be one-
quarter to one-half as large as the last U.S. recession.
Job displacement peaks in 2007 or 2008 and persists, as shown in Figure 7, even as excess
unemployment is eliminated. Displacement persists, though at lower levels, throughout the
forecast period because real wages are depressed by the rise in energy prices (and the overall price
level), causing workers to drop out of the labor force. Job losses are especially large in the
scenario with the lowest emission targets (grandfathered permits, 90% of '90 emissions), in which
energy prices must rise most rapidly.
GHG policies have a strikingly consistent, negative impact on real wages, as shown in
Figure 8.¹⁷ The rate of growth in real wages is reduced by 0.4 to 0.55 percentage points
immediately after the introduction of the permit system in 2000. These reductions in real wage
growth, relative to the base case, persist for over a decade. The losses are largest with the most
restrictive emission limits (90% of '90 emissions), and least for the case with grandfathered
permits and 1990 emission targets. In the latter case there is a small, offsetting, positive effect
from the increased ability of corporations to grant wage increases when permits are
grandfathered, which increases corporate revenues.
-13-
The decade-plus suppression of wage growth rates could cumulatively reduce the growth
in the level of real wages by more than 50% between 1995 and 2020, relative to the base case, as
shown in Figure 9. Real wages decline in all three scenarios between 2000 and 2006, and by
2020 they are only 3% to 4% higher than they were in 1995 (versus a 9% increase in the base
case) This translates into an average growth rate of less than 0.2% per year. With such low
rates of wage growth the continued increase in inequality will lead to falling wages for most
workers. Only the top groups of wage earners are likely to experience any real wage gains over
this period.
Impacts on the Business Sector
If GHG policy simply grants permits to business at no cost, then businesses currently using
energy will effectively capture the stream of income that is equal to the value of those permits.
They can choose to either use the permits themselves, or sell them to other users on the open
market. The advantages of this system are that: 1) as the number of permits in circulation is
reduced between 2000 and 2010, the lowest cost means of eliminating energy use will be
identified by market forces; and 2) the grandfathering of permits will provide some compensation
to businesses that will face higher costs of energy because of the implementation of GHG policies.
Under this policy scenario, businesses will capture revenue stream, which will grow in
value with the prices of permits, if the permits are given away, as shown in Figure 10. Corporate
profits (before taxes) are forecast to rise steadily in the base and auction, deficit reduction cases
from $500 billion in 1995 to $1.6 trillion in 2020. This reflects both the growth of the capital
intensity of the economy (the capital stock is growing faster than in the base case) and an increase
in the expected returns to capital, as well as the general growth in real output. If permits are
-14-
grandfathered, annual corporate profits in 2020 will increase by an additional $1.1 to $1.2 trillion
dollars, an increase of about 66%, as a result of the infusion of GHG permit revenues and
associate increases in the prices of domestic products."
Investment as a share of GDP will increase in all three GHG scenarios, as shown in Figure
11. Higher energy prices will increase the levels of investment in both residential and non-
residential goods, including houses, cars and producer durable equipment (production machinery).
This will have important side effects, by stimulating the production of capital goods and
construction sectors, as shown below. The increase in investment, if it materializes, is the key to
generating increased levels of GDP in the DRI/McGraw-Hill forecasts.
A policy induced increase in the level of profits will cause profits to rise sharply as a share
of GDP in the two cases where permits are simply given to businesses (grandfathered), as shown
in Figure 12. This sizeable increase in profits reflects returns on the incremental investment
shown in Figure 11, and also returns on the asset value of carbon permits in circulation. In the
DRI/McGraw-Hill model, increasing profits have a positive macroeconomic impact, because they
provide savings to fund the investment growth. However, rising profits, as a share of national
income, also imply a fall in the labor share of income, providing further evidence that production
workers will be squeezed by GHG policies. The profit share of output increases by 9.4 and 11.2
percentage points, respectively, in the two cases with grandfathered permits in 2020, with the
larger effect occurring with the restrictive target of 90% of '90 emissions. In the base case,
profits rise gradually from 7.4% to 15% of GDP. In Scenario's 1 and 2, profits rise to 24.6% to
26.5% of GDP. Such large increases in capital's share of national income would virtually ensure
a sizeable increase in the inequality of income distributions in the U.S.
-15-
Effects of GHG Policies on Trade and Investment flows
By 2020, U.S. Imports would rise sharply under GHG policies because higher energy
prices would make foreign goods (made with cheaper energy inputs) more attractive, as shown in
Figure 13. In the short run, as output falls due to the introduction of the permit system, imports
will decline slightly. After 2007 they surpass the base case (no GHG policies), and by 2020 they
are $175 to $275 billion higher than in the base case. Imports rise most rapidly under the scenario
with the most restrictive limits on GHG gases (90% of '90 emissions), because the high costs of
carbon permits. The auction, deficit reduction case has the smallest effect on imports, because
output is slightly lower than in the case with grandfathered permits (at '90 emission levels).
Real exports, shown in Figure 14 would fall below base case exports until at least 2013,
for all three policy scenarios. Exports recover somewhat thereafter, because of the effects of
increased domestic productivity. In particular, in case 2 (permits auctioned, revenues used for
deficit reduction) exports are $25 billion higher than in the base case by 2020.
On balance, the increase in imports is considerably larger than the increase of exports, in
the long run, in all three cases. Therefore the trade deficit (imports less exports) increases sharply
as a share of GDP, as shown in Figure 15. The balance improves slightly during the initial period
of adjustment to GHG policies, between 2000 and 2010, because of the decline in consumption,
but the deficit expands rapidly thereafter. By 2020, the deficit has increased to between 6.0%
and 7.5% of GDP, as compared with a 1997 deficit of approximately 2% of GDP. The trade
deficit is forecast to grow substantially in the base case, as well. However, the GHG policies
would add between $149, $287 and $240 billion to the trade deficit in 2020 in cases 1 through 3,
respectively. The trade deficit would increase by 1.3, 2.7 and 2.1 percentage points of GDP in the
-16-
respective cases.
Deficit increases of this size would have huge impacts on traded goods, especially
manufacturing-sector products. We have estimated that $1 billion worth of exports would
generate approximately 14,000 domestic jobs, including direct and indirect employment effects, in
1995 (Scott and Lee, 1997). Using this multiplier, the forecast increases in the trade deficit could
eliminate a gross total of 2 to 4 million job opportunities in goods producing and related
industries. As shown below, the DRI/McGraw-Hill industry projections for 2020 do not reflect
employment losses of these magnitudes, because the model assumes that the economy returns to
full employment and displaced workers are reabsorbed into other industries by that time.¹⁹
However, if the forecast changes in trade flows are correct, then 2 to 4 million fewer jobs will
exist or be created in industries producing traded goods, and related inputs, could occur with
GHG policies, as compared with base case employment forecasts. In the long run, increased
imports will cause shifts in employment within the manufacturing sector, and between
manufacturing and services. As a result, gross job displacement is likely to exceed the net job
losses that are discussed below.
If GHG policies do eliminate such a large number of manufacturing jobs, they will have a
much larger impact on wages and incomes, especially for non-college educated workers, than is
suggested by the DRI/McGraw-Hill macroeconomic model, because wages and incomes are much
higher in manufacturing than in other sectors of the economy. Further research is needed to
separately estimate the effects of GHG policies on the wages and incomes of blue- and white-
collar workers.
There is also a more fundamental set of international trade and investment issues that are
-17-
not addressed in the DRI model, as suggested by outside reviewers of the IAT, noted above. The
DRI model assumes that the share of imports coming from the Annex-I countries (that will
impose GHG emission limits) and non-Annex-I countries (which will presumably not be limited,
for some time to come) will remain fixed in the base case. However, the structure of trade flows
has shifted rapidly in the past 10 years, even without the incentives provided by GHG policies.
The share of U.S. imports originating in the developing countries increased from 29.1% in 1978
to 36.4% in 1990, even while the ratio of imports to value added in the manufacturing sector was
increasing sharply, from 18.3% to 30.7% (Sachs and Shatz 1994, 10 and 12).
GHG policies will also create incentives to accelerate the pace of globalization and
integration of the world economy. Globalization will take at least two forms. First, the share of
U.S. imports originating in developing countries will grow, even more rapidly than it has in the
past (for example, Mexico and China have experienced some of the most rapid rates of growth in
U.S. imports in the 1990s). Second, investment will be diverted from the U.S. to non-Annex I
countries, especially Mexico and other countries with large supplies of low-wage, semi-skilled
labor. The pool of investment capital available for investing abroad could also be increased if
grandfathered permit policies are implemented, as shown above. For the past two decades trade
has grown twice as fast as world income, and foreign direct investment has grown four times as
fast as income. Globalization is likely to accelerate if GHG policies are implemented that do not
limit or otherwise control production shifts designed to escape GHG limits.
Sectoral and Regional Impacts of GHG Policies
Tables 2 and 3 forecast the effects of GHG policies on total and sectoral employment, at
a fairly aggregated level in the economy (1- and 2-digit SIC categories of output). Employment
-18-
changes in 2007 (Table 2) will be dominated by the initial reduction in output, relative to the base
case, as noted above. Employment changes will be almost universally negative, and will be spread
more or less evenly across the economy. Total losses are greatest when GHG limits are most
restrictive (90% of '90 emissions). DRI/McGraw-Hill predicts that a net total of 1.5 to 2.6
million jobs, or about 1.0% to 1.8% of total employment in the base case, will be lost in this first
recession. At the high levels of aggregation shown in Table 2, only the energy-related sectors are
predicted to experience very large job losses in the short run, including mining (down 11.5% to
15.4%) and petroleum refining (down 2.5% to 7.4%)
In 2020 employment changes are more mixed (Table 3). Total employment declines by
400,000 to 1 million jobs (0.1% to 0.4% of base case employment in 2020), because of the
reduction in real wages discussed above. However, employment grows in some sectors (such as
other services, retail trade and durable goods) while declining in others (including mining,
transportation and non-durables manufacturing). Contract construction employment increases in
the two cases with less restrictive limits on carbon emissions because of increased levels of
investment. Significant employment losses spread to a much wider range of industries, as the
effects of higher energy costs and related changes in other costs are spread throughout the
economy. Mining losses rise to 22% to 24% of the base case and petroleum refining employment
declines by 17% to 24%. Several industries are forecast to have significant job losses under
grandfathered permits, but gains when permits are auctioned and the revenues used to reduce the
federal deficit or increase savings, including apparel products, leather products, electrical
machinery and miscellaneous manufacturing. These are all sectors that are open to international
competition, where production is highly sensitive to wage levels. Nominal wages would be about
-19-
six percent lower than in the base case by 2020 in the auction, deficit reduction scenario.
However, wages are higher than in the base case when permits are grandfathered, which explains
why employment impacts differ at the sectoral level in these scenarios. 20
Employment shifts between industries could contribute to the downward pressure on
wages discussed above. Table 4 reproduces forecasts for employment changes in 2020 from
Table 3 for a selected group of the most highly aggregated industries, and also includes
information on average production worker wages in these sectors in 1995. This table strikingly
illustrates one reason why wages grow so slowly in these scenarios. 400,000 to 500,000 job
opportunities in mining, transportation and public utilities, where wages average between $14.22
and $15.32 per hour, would be eliminated (relative to base-case forecasts), while 240,000 to
290,000 jobs would be created in retail trade, which had wages averaging $7.70 per hour in 1995.
In addition, 180,000 to 340,000 manufacturing jobs, paying between $11.60 and $12.90 per hour,
would also be eliminated if GHG emission quotas were allocated to industry (rather than
auctioned to raise government revenues). This process of structural change resulting from GHG
policies will contribute to increasing inequality within labor markets in the U.S.
DRI/McGraw Hill also provides detailed forecasts at the 3 digit level for industries, and at
the 2 digit level for the 10 census regions of the U.S. Table 5 reports the industries that are
predicted to gain or lose more than 5% of base-case employment in 2020. Losses outweigh gains
in Table 4, in several ways. The number of industries experiencing losses of more than 5% of
output is more than twice as large as the number with gains of more that 5%. In addition, there
are 13 industries that lose more than 10% of output in 2020, including Rubber and Plastics
footwear (-56%) coal mining (-45%), other leather goods (-34%) and electric utilities (30%).
-20-
However, there are no industries that gain more than 7.1% in total output. These trends reflect
the broader tendency for employment to fall in manufacturing, especially durable goods, and rise
in services sectors, including education services, retail and wholesale trade and state and local
governments, as shown in Tables 3 and 4, above. Other individual industries that would be
especially hard hit by GHG policies include kitchen products, apparel, toys, and various other
mining industries (fertilizers, nonferrous metals and iron and ferroalloy ores).
Coal mining is one of largest and most heavily affected industries under GHG policies.²¹
Coal output is projected to fall by 45 to 50% in 2020, relative to a base case with no restrictions
on carbon emissions. The coal industry employed 116,000 workers in 1995. DRI/McGraw-Hill's
(1997) base case forecasts that coal industry employment will decline to 80,000 workers in 2020.
GHG policies will eliminate another 35,000 to 38,000 jobs in this industry by 2020, reducing total
employment to between 42,000 and 45,000 workers. GHG policies will double projected job
losses in this hard-hit sector between 1995 and 2020.
The tendency for GHG policies to shift employment from manufacturing to services would
be much more pronounced if trade and foreign investment effects were larger, for the reasons
noted above. In addition, given the large increase in imports and the trade deficit, shown in
Figures 12 and 14 above, DRI may be underestimating the effect of the GHG policies on output at
the sectoral level. The shift of employment from manufacturing to services, the growth of imports
and the decline in the price competitiveness of U.S. products would all have depressing effects on
U.S. wages, for the reasons discussed above.
The shift from manufacturing to services, especially retail trade, is illustrated in Table 6,
which summarizes forecast changes in population and employment in the 10 census regions of the
-21-
U.S. in 2020, under the case 1 assumptions (grandfathered permits, 1990 emission limits).
Manufacturing employment (shown in the last column) declines in 9 of 10 regions, rising only in
the Pacific Northwest, where it is attracted by the availability of relatively cheap hydro-powered
electricity. Retail trade experiences employment gains in 7 of the 9 regions that experience
declining manufacturing employment. Mining, especially coal mining, declines sharply in all
regions of the country, as noted above. Construction absorbs some of excess labor in regions that
are forecast to enjoy stable or rising population levels because of GHG policies. Overall,
employment declines in 6 of the regions (more than 1% in the East South Central and West South
Central areas), and population declines in 3 of the 10 regions. Changes in energy costs, and the
location of employment opportunities drive population shifts. In general, there is a substantial
shift of jobs and population to the Pacific Northwest, with the other 7 regions not noted here
experiencing small net gains or losses of jobs and employment in Case 1.
Regional and industrial shifts in production and employment will reinforce the tendency of
GHG policies to increase income disparities in the U.S. The movement of labor out of high-wage
sectors, such as manufacturing and mining, and into low wage sectors, such as retail trade, will
tend to increase income inequality across the U.S., as the supply of good jobs for the bottom
three-fourths of the labor force is reduced. Regionally, the Pacific Northwest, which already
enjoys relatively high standards of living, will experience employment and population gains, while
relatively low-income regions such as the East South Central will experience job and populations
losses. These changes will tend to increase the disparity which exists in wages and income
distributions among these regions, by increasing labor demands in the regions that gain and
reducing labor demand in the regions that lose jobs and population.
-22-
Policy Implications and Areas for Future Research
To date, the discussion of GHG policies has paid inadequate attention to sectoral, regional
and other adjustment policies needed to minimize the negative effects of GHG policies on the
distribution of income. Previous research on GHG policies has focused almost exclusively on the
identification of costs and benefits at the macroeconomic level of the economy. This analysis adds
consideration of equity issues to the debate.
Optimal GHG Control Strategies
As noted above, policy makers are discussing a range of goals for the Kyoto-COP-III
meetings and potential agreements. These range from stabilizing emissions in the Annex-I
countries at 110% of 1990 levels by 2010 (IAT, 1997), or 2020, to reducing them by up to 20%
as soon as 2005 22 DRI/McGraw-Hill (1997) estimates that stabilizing or reducing emissions at
1990 levels will require an effective carbon permit price of $180 to $192/ton in 2010, and $270 to
$281 per ton in 2020 (Table 1, above). Further emission reductions would require substantially
higher carbon prices.
Nordhaus (1994, 93-96) has developed a simple simulation model of the costs and benefits
of global climate change which identifies optimal emission control rates and the carbon taxes
needed to achieve those levels of control (the carbon tax would have essentially the same effect as
a carbon permit-fee on energy use and carbon emissions). His model suggests that very small and
gradual controls are needed, with carbon taxes of only $5.29 per ton (in 1989 $), rising to $17.75
per ton in 2075. 23 He reviews a number of other, earlier studies which also reached similar
conclusions. Fankhauser and Tol (1996) also review a number of recent estimates of the marginal
damage of a ton of carbon emissions of $5 to $125 per ton of carbon, "with most estimates in the
-23-
lower end of this range." This literature suggests that the emission limits considered in IAT
(1997) and DRI/McGraw-Hill (1997) may be too restrictive, in the sense that marginal costs
would exceed marginal benefits at the given levels of carbon emission limits.
Measures to Offset the Effects of GHG Policies on Income Distribution
This report makes no assessment of the potential benefits of GHG policies, in terms of
potential risks or damages that could be avoided, nor does it take a position on the advisability of
adopting any further policies to restrict GHG emissions. However, we recommend that if such
policies are implemented, two specific, additional measures are needed to limit their disruptive
effects on the economy, and on the lives of American workers.
The first concerns the impact of GHG policies on globalization of trade and investment.
If two different sets of standards or timetables for emission reductions are established for
developed and developing counties, they will create incentives for firms to increase imports and
move production and investment out of the U.S., in order to take advantage of lower energy
prices and less restrictive emission limits in the developing countries. There are policies available
which can reduce the trade and investment distorting effects of GHG policies.
In order to reduce or eliminate the negative effects of GHG policies on U.S. trade and
investment, it could even be necessary to establish a border equalization tax policy. This tax
would rebate the cost of emission limits on the energy content of exports, and assess an equivalent
fee on products imported into the U.S. This kind of policy could eliminate the incentive to import
goods and move plants abroad to escape U.S. emission limits. Other policies which could reduce
the effects of GHG policies on trade and foreign investment include quotas on energy intensive
imports, and safeguard measures to limit import surges. However, each of these measures could
-24-
conflict with our obligations under the GATT, increasing the difficulty of developing a
comprehensive GHG policy package.
The second type of policy that would be needed is a set of measures that would provide
substantial assistance to the workers and communities damaged by the creation of greenhouse gas
policies. For workers, such a program should involve meaningful retraining opportunities, and
several years of income support while involved in those activities. For particularly hard hit sectors
and regions, special programs could be required to provide for early retirements, buyouts and to
ensure continuation of health and pension benefits. For communities, there are many options
including, but not limited to, industrial and R&D policy support.
Worker retraining policies, especially in the trade adjustment area, have established a poor
track record, which may raise questions about the wisdom of incorporating such measures into a
GHG policy or treaty package. These policies have failed for several reasons. They have
historically been poorly funded, not providing sufficient resources for meaningful retraining nor
the time and family income needed to sustain it. In addition, commitments have often been
dishonored in the past, when funding for adjustment programs was terminated or drastically
reduced after the policy had been implemented. For these reasons, a much larger and more
dependable commitment of resources would be needed to compensate workers and communities
for the costs of GHG policies.
Limitations and Areas for Future Research
Finally, we conclude by noting three areas of uncertainty. First, there is substantial
uncertainty about the pace of global warming and the precise climactic impact of a given volume
of CO₂ emissions. Second, this report analyzes the costs, but not the potential benefits of climate
-25-
change policy, including any possible economic benefits. Third, there are many unknowns about
the costs of reducing emissions. The DRI model provides one way to estimate those costs. This
model could overstate or understate the costs of reducing GHG emissions. If the energy
efficiency of the economy grows more slowly than is expected in the base case, then greater
reductions in energy use will be required to meet any given standard, which would dramatically
increase the costs of compliance. On the other hand, in the past such modeling exercises have
produced estimates that have proved, in retrospect, to significantly overestimate the costs of new
pollution controls. However, even if the models discussed in this report overestimate the costs of
GHG policies by 50% or more, the actual costs would still be large and significant.
In addition to these general areas of uncertainty, this report has raised a number of specific
concerns that require future research. These include the effect of GHG policies on foreign trade
and investment, including sectoral details and relationships between the major accounts
(merchandise, services, current and capital accounts); and if permits are traded internationally, or
joint implementation is allowed (neither of these alternatives was considered in this report), the
implications for trade and exchange rates in a general equilibrium context. Another major area of
concern is the system for implementing permits, how they will be created and traded, the nature of
the property rights involved, and the wealth effects of grandfathering or other forms of
distribution to the private sector. There is a related set of issues concerning the distribution of
income between labor and capital, and the future rate of return on capital, that GHG policies will
also intersect with. Finally, further disclosure, review and debate is needed about the technical
assumptions of the models used to analyze GHG policies. This review should include the relevant
price and/or substitution elasticities and the potential (and cost) of increasing the energy-efficiency
-26-
of the domestic economy without GHG policies. Differences in base case level of energy use,
during the forecast period, can have a very large impact on the cost of limiting carbon emissions
and this issue has not been adequately addressed in the literature.
-27-
References
Bernstein, Paul M., W. David Montgomery and Thomas F. Rutherford. 1997. "World Economic
Impacts of US Commitments to Medium Term Carbon Emissions Limits," Washington,
D.C.: Charles River Associates Incorporated, CRA No 837-06.
Bovenberg, A. Lans and Ruud A. de Mooij, 1994. "Environmental Levies and Distortionary
Taxation," The American Economic Review, 94(4), 1085-1089, (September).
Boyd, Roy, Kerry Krutilla and W. Kip Viscusi. 1995. "Energy Taxation as a Policy Instrument
to Reduce CO₂ Emissions: A Net Benefit Analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics
and Management, 29, 1-24.
DRI/McGraw-Hill. 1997. "The Impact of Carbon Mitigation Strategies on Energy Markets, the
National Economy, Industry and Regional Economies," July.
Fankhauser, Samuel and Richard S. Tol. 1996. "Climate Change Costs: Recent Advancements in
Economic Assessments," Energy Policy, 24(7), 665-673.
Goulder, Lawrence H. 1995. "Effects of Carbon Taxes in an Economy with Prior Tax
Distortions: An Intertemporal General Equilibrium Analysis," Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management, 29, 271-297.
Interagency Analytic Team. 1997. "Economic Effects of Global Climate Change Policies." Draft
of May 30, as released to the House Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Washington, D.C.: Climate Change Task Force. Manuscript.
Hoeller, Peter, Andrew Dean and Jon Nicolaisen. 1991. "Macroeconomic Implications of
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Survey of Empirical Studies." OECD Economic
Studies, 16, Spring, 45-78.
Hoerner, J. Andrew and Frank Mueller. 1993. "The Impact of a Broad-Based Energy Tax on the
Competitiveness of U.S. Industry," The Natural Resources Tax Review, July-August
1993, 428-458.
Hoerner, J. Andrew and Frank Mueller. 1996. "Carbon Taxes for Climate Protection in a
Competitive World," Environmental Tax Program, Center For Global Change, College
Park, MD. Manuscript, June.
Maddison, David. 1995. "A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Slowing Climate Change," Energy Policy,
23(4/5), 337-346.
-28-
Mendeloff, John. 1988. The Dilemma of Toxic Substance Regulation. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Mishel, Lawrence, Jared Bernstein and John Schmitt. 1997. The State of Working America,
I
1996-97. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Nordhaus, William D. 1994. Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of Climate
Change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Nordhaus, William D. and Zili Yang. 1996. "A Regional Dynamic General-Equilibrium Model of
Alternative Climate-Change Strategies," The American Economic Review, 86(4), 741-
765. September.
Repetto, Robert and Duncan Austin. 1997. The Costs of Climate Protection: A Guide for the
Perplexed. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.
Sachs, Jeffrey, and Howard J. Shatz. 1994. "Trade and Jobs in U.S. Manufacturing." Brookings
Papers on Economic Activity: 1. 1-84.
Scott, Robert and Thea Lee. 1997. "Trade Deficit, Job Losses Soar Since NAFTA."
Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute Trade Fax, February 19.
Tyson, Laura. 1997. "Inequality Amid Prosperity," The Washington Post. July 8.
Wigley, T.M.L., R. Richels and J.A. Edmonds. 1996. "Economic and Environmental Choices in
the Stabilization of Atmospheric CO₂ Concentrations," Nature, 379, 18 January, 240-243.
Yellen, Janet. 1997. "Statement before the House Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and
Power," July 15. Typescript.
-29-
Endnotes
1. This section is based on, and the quotes are drawn from Bernstein, Montgomery and Rutherford
(1997)
2. Nordhaus (1994), which estimates optimal GHG policies from an explicitly defined welfare
model is a notable exception. Other examples include Boyd, Krutilla and Viscusi (1995) and
Madisson (1995).
3. See, for example, Hoeller, Dean and Nicolaisen (1991) and Repetto and Austin (1997).
4. See, for example, comments on the IAT draft report in letters released to the House
Subcommittee on Energy and Power, as an appendix to Yellen (1997):
Dale Jorgenson and William D. Nordhaus (April 24, 1997) "This model is highly
inappropriate extremely sensitive to assumptions about energy prices. "The letter also criticized
the "use of fixed-coefficient, input-output model." and Raymond J. Kopp (May 15, 1997) stated
that the DRI model is " useful only for the analysis of short-term adjustments, and even here,
one should proceed with caution, because the model is "driven from fixed coefficient input-
output tables that can give very distorted views of the adjustment behavior of the economy."
5. The IAT report utilized three models. In addition to the DRI model discussed here, the IAT
also developed forecasts for a similar set of policy scenarios using the Markal-Macro and Second
Generation Models (SGM). These are simulation-type models that calculate equilibrium output
levels, given constraints (such as available energy resources) and a set of initial conditions and
assumptions about the structure of the economy. The Markal-Macro and SGM models are not
designed to estimate adjustment costs or economic disequilibria that will result from policy
changes. Hence the DRI model is better suited to the analysis of displacement issues, while the
general class of simulation models are more appropriate for estimating long-run consequences.
Note, however, that the IAT was criticized by reviewers for: 1) failing to utilize a full computable
general equilibrium model, rather than the Markal-Macro or SGM; and 2) because neither of
those models included a well developed foreign trade sector. See comments by Nordhaus and
Jorgenson (previously cited), Ray Kopp, John Weyant and Richard Richels, in letters released to
the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, as an appendix to Yellen (1997).
6. See Wiley, T.M.L., R. Richels and J.A. Edmonds 1996.
7. Note that IAT (1997, Table 1) reports that total carbon emissions in 1990 were 1338 MMT,
1.1% more than is reported for 1990 consumption levels in DRI/McGraw-Hill (1997).
8. These target reduction levels are 5% to 8% larger than those required in IAT (1997). The
difference is explained by the combination in the IAT report of more rapid declines in the energy
intensity of the economy (1.25 percent per year vs. 1.0 percent per year), and the slightly higher
baseline level of carbon emissions. The efficiency assumption is the most important difference, by
far, between the two baseline cases.
-30-
9. A fourth case and a new base case are also analyzed in DRI/McGraw-Hill (1997). These cases
assume that the energy intensity of the domestic economy in the "heroic base case" improves at
1.75% per year. This corresponds to a similar scenario in the IAT report. Results parallel those
of the cases discussed below. The scenario in case 4 is otherwise identical to case 1 (grand
fathered permits). Case 4 and its comparable base case are not analyzed here because the "heroic
base case" scenario is highly unlikely to occur.
10. Comments on the IAT draft report released to the House Subcommittee on Energy and
Power, as an appendix to Yellen (1997) in letter from Richard Richels, May 30, 1997. See also
letter from Larry Goulder, June 2, 1997, "The report seems consistently to employ assumptions
and policy scenarios that contribute to low costs of emissions reductions."
11. This view is also supported by Ray Kopp, in a letter of May 30, 1997, who noted that "All of
the departures from AEO97 used in the draft report serve to decreased carbon emissions [in the
base case] and therefore make attainment of a 1990 stabilization less costly." (Letter released to
the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, as an appendix to Yellen, 1997).
12. Figure 4 is derived from two of the scenarios shown in Figure 16 (p. 28) of the IAT draft
report.
13. If public investment were to be increased using GHG revenues, then output, consumption and
other segments of the economy could achieve higher levels in the long run than in the cases
considered here. However, increases in public investment would appear less likely to obtain than
general or targeted tax cuts, in the present political environment in the U.S.
14. Bovenberg and de Mooij (1994) have shown that, in theory, revenue raising environmental
taxes can lower economic output because they "exacerbate, rather than alleviate, preexisting tax
distortions." Goulder (1995) develops a general equilibrium model which shows that the problem
with the carbon tax is its "focus on intermediate inputs and its relatively narrow base in
comparison with income taxes." In principle, raising the cost or limiting the supply of energy
inputs will change the shape and position of the production possibility frontier, generally reducing
the amount of output that can be generated with any given set of other inputs.
15. For example, comparing Case 1 and the Base Case, the increase in investment is about 90% as
large as the increase in total national savings.
16. Mishel, Bernstein, and Schmitt (1997, 195) estimate that trade could be responsible for more
than 30% of the increase in income inequality in the U.S. between 1979 and 1989.
17. The effects on real wages are estimated by dividing the employment cost index by the
consumer price index series in DRI-McGraw-Hill (1997, 20 and exhibit 15). The base case value
for this series is then contrasted with each of the forecasts to determine the change in the real
value of compensation. Note that DRI-McGraw Hill draws a sharp contrast between changes in
the nominal wage series for case 3 (permit auctions) which decline sharply, and the other policy
cases, where nominal wages increase because of increases in corporate revenues and hence the
-31-
ability to pay. However, the variation in these results is eliminated when real wage series (and the
corresponding differences of consumer prices in each case) are considered.
18. This increase in before-tax corporate profits appears to primarily reflects an increase in the
implicit rate of return on capital. The cumulative increase in fixed nonresidential capital between
2000 and 2020 in the three cases analyzed here is between $1.0 and $1.4 trillion, roughly
equivalent to the increase in annual corporate profits by 2020. Therefore most of the increase in
profits would appear to reflect higher returns on existing capital stock. This implicit forecast of
increased returns is unrealistic, unless the world-wide corporate rate return on invested capital
rises sharply because of GHG policies. However, an alternative view might treat the incremental
profits as the returns on the imputed capital value of carbon emission permits. This view suggests
that grandfathering of permits will not only transfer revenues to permit holders, but also new
assets with a significant capital value. The implicit rate of return of capital, and wealth transfers
associated with the permits, are important issues for future research.
19. Note that the DRI/McGraw-Hill (1997) forecasts for the three scenarios contain puzzling and
potentially contradictory results. The Merchandise trade balance worsens by less than $100
billion in each case, although the calculated trade balances (including services) decline much more
sharply, as indicated in the text. It is unlikely that services trade can or will account for these
differences. In addition, the current account balance improves by $87 to $175 billion in the three
GHG scenarios, presumably because of the increase in national savings. However, improvements
of this magnitude in the current account are unlikely unless they are mirrored in changes in the
trade balances, which dominate current account transactions.
20. Exchange rates are essentially unchanged in the DRI/McGraw-Hill (1997) forecasts, so
changes in nominal wages and prices directly effect competitiveness. The rigidity of exchange
rates in these forecasts is a potential source of error.
21. There is a greater percentage drop in employment in rubber and plastic footwear under GHG
policies, as shown in Table 4. However, output in this industry was less than $1 billion in 1995,
as compared with coal industry output of over $28 billion in that year.
22. Association of Small Island States, 1995, "Draft Protocol Submitted to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change," as referenced in Repetto and Austin (1997, 1).
23. Nordhaus and Yang (1996) develop a regional bargaining model which generates slightly
higher optimal permit prices of roughly $30 per ton of carbon in 2090, versus $21 in the DICE
model developed in Nordhaus (1994).
-32-
bc-Independent-Petroleum 10-22
oil and Natural Gas Producers Respond to Clinton Global Warming Solutions
To: National Desk, Environment Writer
Contact: Kate Hutcheons or Jeff Eshelman, 202-857-4722, or
jeshelman (at) ipaa. org, both of the Independent
Petroleum Association of America
WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today President Clinton unveiled a
plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions as a so-called solution'' to stop the
theory of global warming. The Independent Petroleum Association of America,
which represents the nation's 5,000 crude oil and natural gas producers,
responded with the following statement. IPAA Chairman-Elect George Yates,
president of Harvey E. Yates Company, Roswell, N.M., said:
America's crude oil and natural gas producers are extremely concerned
that President Clinton is offering high-cost, economically risky solutions to
a problem that has not been proven to exist.
The president should be listening to the legions of independent
scientists and other knowledgeable voices whose expertise is in the field of
climatology and meteorology. In offering these so-called 'solutions,' the
president has catered to international pressure and emotion-based politics,
and he has ignored science.
Are we in denial that global warming could exist? Absolutely not. But it
still has not been demonstrated that man is turning up the heat.
Quite simply, the jury is still out. And it is the president's
responsibility to study this issue exhaustively before sacrificing thousands
of jobs and spending billions in taxpayer dollars. I'm afraid the Clinton
administration hasn't done that important job.
IPAA member companies drill 85 percent of the nation's crude oil and
natural gas wells. Yates will be speaking before the American Society on
Competitiveness in Tulsa, Okla., tomorrow on global warming and other issues.
Editors: Some computer systems do not recognize the at'' sign. It is an
important component of e-mail addresses and should be used in place of the
symbol (At) in the contact information above.
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
**** filed by:US-F(--) on 10/22/97 at 15:56EDT ****
**** printed by:WHPR(197) on 10/22/97 at 16:00EDT ****
BC ENVIRONMENT CLIMATE-TALKS 1STLD
FOCUS-US stance on climate awaited at Bonn meeting
(Recasts, adds comments from U.N. delegates)
By Terence Gallagher
BONN, Oct 22 (Reuters) - U.S. President Bill Clinton's announcement later
on Wednesday of proposals to address global warming may prove disappointingly
cautious, but would not derail international negotiations on the issue,
delegates to a U.N. convention on the climate said on Wednesday.
The delegates, while reluctant to respond to a plan that has not yet been
officially unveiled, said all proposals, including those from Washington, were
part of a complex negotiating endgame that, with luck, would produce a
compromise in Kyoto, Japan, in December.
That is where industrialised countries hope to reach an agreement on how
much to restrict their output of carbon dioxide and other gases seen as a
responsible for a gradual rise in the earth's temperature that could have
catastrophic consequences for the environment and the global economy.
The U.S. position, which Clinton is expected to unveil in a speech in
Washington starting at 1840 GMT, is the last among major industrialised
nations to be presented.
Industry sources say it sets the least ambitious targets, aiming to roll
back emissions of greenhouse gases only to 1990 levels by the year 2010.
The 15-nation European Union, which has proposed a 15 percent cut from
1990 levels, has already sharply criticised a Japanese plan calling for five
percent cuts.
If the U.S. offers less, the EU will have to condemn it, but it cannot
afford to do so too strongly if it wants the Kyoto conference to succeed.
Raul Estrada Oyuela, chairman of the current working session in Bonn
which runs until October 31, declined to comment on the reported U.S. stance,
saying: We need to know what the proposal really is.
The delegates, grappling with piles of conflicting proposals, face a
difficult task in coming up with a single document all can agree on.
Small island nations, who say their existence is threatened by a rise in
the sea level caused by melting polar ice caps, say even the EU proposal does
not go far enough.
Energy producing nations including Australia and the Organisation of
Petroleum Exporting Countries are opposed to further cuts.
U.S. industry has launched a major advertising campaign saying the
planned reductions will cost more than the damage they seek to prevent.
In setting low goals, Clinton may be pragmatically showing he is
reluctant to set targets that cannot be met. The final agreement may not
resemble any single proposal now on the table, delegates said.
Japan has put forward a plan we think is reasonable, and we hope it
becomes a focal point for everyone to gather around, said Toshiaki Tanabe,
the chief negotiator from Tokyo.
If we propose goals we cannot attain, this will be nothing more than a
beauty contest, Tanabe said.
German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel, on a visit to Tokyo, threatened to
reject the Kyoto agreement if it is too weak, and criticised the Japanese
proposal as inadequate.
We cannot accept an insufficient outcome, Kinkel said.
The Kyoto
conference must be made a success.
The environmentalist group Greenpeace urged Clinton to abandon his
dinosaur policies'' and agree to significant reductions in greenhouse gases.
Greenpeace erected a six-metre (20-foot) -high sculpture of
a dinosaur assembled from old car parts, oil barrels and scrap metal outside
the Bonn meeting.
The dinosaurs died out because of climate change and they couldn't
adapt. Japan and the U.S. are running dinosaur policies. They are not adapted
to the realities of the modern world, particularly the threat of climate
change, said Greenpeace climate policy director Bill Hare.
Environmentalists are already concerned the industrialised nations will
not meet the goals they set at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, where
they agreed to cut emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2000.
REUTERS
**** filed by: RB-- (--) on 10/22/97 at 15:52EDT ****
**** printed by: WHPR (197) on 10/22/97 at 16:03EDT ****
bc-greenpeace-climate 10-22
Greenpeace Calls Clinton Proposal Black Wednesday for Climate Talks
To: National Desk, Environment Writer
Contact: Kalee Kreider, 202-319-2523 or 202-236-2579 (mobile),
Andrew Davies, 202-319-2432,
Holger Roenitz, 011-31-653-417-945 (Bonn), or
Bill Hare, 011-31-653-433-454 (Bonn)
all of Greenpeace
WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by
Greenpeace:
Today the Clinton/Gore administration announced its official negotiating
position as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The position calls for a stabilization of carbon dioxide emissions at 1990
levels during a budget period from 2008-2012.
This is the black Wednesday for the climate negotiations, said Kalee
Kreider, director of the Greenpeace USA Climate Campaign. President Clinton
has broken the promise he made at the Second Earth Summit where he called for
'a strong American commitment to realistic and binding limits that will
significantly reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases. To respond with such
complacency to climate change is to ignore the threat to human health and the
environment.
Industry groups have funded a $13 million advertising campaign in the
United States designed to derail any agreement at Kyoto, and the oil and gas
industry alone has funneled more than $50 million into the coffers of both
U.S. political parties.
The U.S. position is far behind the European Union proposal which calls
for a 15 percent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2010 with an interim 7.5
percent reduction by 2005, all based upon1990 levels. Greenpeace, along with
the Alliance of Small Island States, supports a 20 percent reduction in CO2
emissions by 2005 based upon 1990 levels -- a position that is just within
nature's safety limits.
If the U.S. position as reported were adopted at Kyoto, then we would
consider the agreement a failure, continued Kreider.
Clinton also announced that the United States would support a set of tax
breaks and financial incentives to promote renewable technologies and energy
efficiency into the marketplace. The administration will not, however, remove
large corporate subsidies to the coal, oil and gas companies, the industries
most responsible for climate change. Approximately 98 percent of U.S.
emissions of carbon dioxide come from the burning of oil (40 percent), coal
(35 percent) and gas (22 percent).
Five years ago at the Rio Summitt, Al Gore and Bill Clinton accused the
Bush White House of being the 'lone holdout' and an 'obstacle to progress'
after it refused to support mandatory (as opposed to the non-mandatory
agreement ultimately signed) curbs on greenhouse gases. Now it is Al Gore and
Bill Clinton who are the obstacles, concluded Kreider.
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
**** filed by: US-F(--) on 10/22/97 at 15:49EDT ****
**** printed by: :WHPR(197) on 10/22/97 at 16:02EDT ****
D2
L+
THE NEW YORK TIMES, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 15, 1990
Economic Scene
Sa
Peter Passell
Do
What Price
air around oil refineries is a billion less to spend on,
say, safer tankers or tastier tomatoes. And if regu-
lation itself breeds inefficiency - if less money
1
Cleaner Air?
spent elsewhere could accomplish the same task -
the approach is even more problematic.
S
That raises a troubling question. Never have so
DETR
many smart, free-market-oriented economists
mestical
been so involved in drafting new environmental
L IKE purer hearts or thinner thighs, cleaner air is
trucks fe
an unalloyed virtue. But like other virtues,
rules. If resulting legislation is such a bad deal,
gust and
cleaner air can only be attained through sac-
why are they now silent?
cline to
rifice. And according to Paul R. Portney, an envi-
One reason is that the free-market enthusiasts
States ec
ronmental economist at Resources for the Future
within the clean air lobby did win one big victory:
sales a y
in Washington, Americans may be on the verge of
Utilities will be allowed to buy and sell rights to
Cars s
giving up too much for too little: They are not
pollute, insuring that the polluters who can cut
annual r:
likely to get their money's worth from the sweep-
emissions most cheaply will do the cutting.
10 days e
ing amendments to the Clean Air Act now being
This will reduce the acid rain cleanup cost by $2
7.9 millic
cobbled together by Congress.
billion to $3 billion annually, Mr. Portney says.
earlier.
According to Mr. Portney's startling analysis, to
Moreover, "emissions trading" on acid rain could
Aug. 10,
be published in the next issue of the American Eco-
serve as the precedent for a least-cost solution for
justed ar
Niculse Asciu
the seas
nomic Association's Journal of Economic Perspec-
the big kahuna of environmental problems, con-
for the 1
tives, the amendments will double the current $30
tainment of the "greenhouse effect" gases that
billion cost of the air quality regulation. But the
The third expensive item, reductions in emis-
million.
cause atmospheric warming. But the price of this
Over
benefits will probably be worth just $14 billion, Mr.
sions of 190 cancer-causing industrial chemicals,
victory was acquiescence on air toxics regulation,
fell 20.7
Portney concluded. His analysis is all the more de-
Mr. Portney estimates, will probably run $6 billion
which many environmental economists privately
150,897 U
pressing because the legislation is the first to draw
to $10 billion annually. But by Government analy-
concede will be about as cost-effective as the Pen-
cluding
on the expertise of efficiency-minded economists.
sis, the risks from these toxic effluents is much
smaller than commonly supposed; lives saved will
tagon's $600 toilet seats.
cent, to 9
probably not exceed 500 annually. Valuing these
Rise in J
The first of the three big-ticket items in the clean
lives at $3 million each, the total benefits will fall
While
The other bargain for silence cannot be rational-
air package would require coal- and oil-fired power
short of $2 billion.
makers
These estimates, Mr. Portney readily acknowl-
ized so high-mindedly. President Bush's economic
plants to slash emissions of sulfur and nitrogen
in sales,
oxides. The likely bill for antipollution equipment
edges, are educated guesses. But the guesses, from
advisers have long been unhappy with the urban
reported
a variety of sources ranging from the Congres-
air quality amendments as well as the air toxics
sales of
and more expensive fuel: about $4 billion annually.
sional Office of Technology Assessment to studies
provisions; the former, it is argued, would effec-
factorie:
But the benefits should exceed the costs. Mr. Port-
tively force the whole country to use expensive
Auto I
ney reckons that the value in better health and re-
commissioned by the Environmental Protection
émission controls that make sense only for the
moveme
duced damage to forests, lakes and farms will run
Agency, do apparently represent the state of the
scientific art.
dozen most heavily polluted cities.
fuel-effi
about $5 billion.
Some environmental advocates- perhaps a ma-
But the self-proclaimed environmental Presi-
sudden
Thereafter, however, the economics of the clean
jority - deny the relevance of such analysis.
dent seems readier to settle for a wasteful bill than
line res
air amendments is all downhill. Tougher regula-
to share the blame for a legislative deadlock. And
Persian
tion of urban polluters will cost $19 billion to $22 bil-
Cleaner is better, they insist, no matter what the
said sal
lion annually. But the benefits, everything from re-
green-eyeshade types say. But for economists (and
the pinchpennies in the budget office, who might
those who think like economists), comparisons of
have been expected to stiffen Mr. Bush's spine,
up, whi
duced incidence of asthma to increased crop yields
more sh
downwind, will probably fall in the $4 billion to $12
costs and benefits must matter in a world of lim-
seem unconcerned because Washington won't foot
"Cust
billion range, Mr. Portney says.
ited resources. An extra billion spent sanitizing the
the bill. Consumers will.
fuel eco
ing to
cars,"
Motor
To Our Readers
search
Chrysler Begins Making New Mini-Vans
Analy
Because a service that pro-
longed
vides The Associated Press
resultin
pany in the next two to three years,"
not exotic enough. You don't mess
By DORON P. LEVIN
with success," Lee A. lacocca, Chrys-
with market data remained
prices c
said Charles Brady, automotive ana-
plies, a
lyst for Oppenheimer & Company.
ler's chairman and chief executive,
without power yesterday after a
!
CHARLTON
RESEARCH
COMPANY
PUBLIC OPINION ON
GLOBAL CLIMATE ISSUES
Tracking Public Opinion and Attitudes
May 1997
Charlton Research has been examining public perception on environmental issues including global
climate change for the past decade. Charlton Research recently conducted a nationwide public opinion
study regarding global climate issues to gauge attitudes among the general public on the current debate on
global climate change. This survey was sponsored by the Small Business Survival Committee.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Knowledge of US global climate policy islow. Further the public does notfeel epresented on
global climate issues.
Americans be that lobal.climate change is alinternational issue that needs to be ad-
dressed by all nations, including de veloping countries.
The public does not feel the United States should pay for ot her countries to obtain new
technologies SO they can limittheir emis sions of carbon dro kide
By two to one repondents oppose the Clinton- Gore proposal that would requir the United
Statesto pay afee to other countries ituses moreienerg vithat its a would allow.
People feel global climate policy alsomeeds to reflect economic considerations.
Policymustibe market based cost effective and'comprehensive
should not be limited to selected countries or one economic sector
It must not hinder economic and job growth.
Americans oppose.energy use quotas and international permits
The public favors voluntary energy reductions, such as driving motor vehicles ss often; and
voluntary reduction of home heating and air conditioning
People oppose increasing gasoline and energy prices for individuals to reduce energy-use.
R CHARLTON RESEARCH COMPANY
Page I
A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS Do NOT FEEL REPRESENTED ON GLOBAL CLIMATE POLICY
Although there has been extensive media coverage
AMERICANS Do Not FEEL REPRESENTED ON
GLOBAL CLIMATE POLICY
of global climate issues. public knowledge of US glo-
bal climate policy is low. Only four percent of re-
of the following policy options word you select
spondents said they were familiar with US global
Government making
climate policy. Respondents do not feel they are be-
decisions regardless of
7
23
your opionion
mg adequately represented on this issue. In fact,
70%
14
seven-out-of-ten respondents feel government offi-
Have adequate
47
cials are making decisions that will affect them with-
information
23%
Optional/
out regard to public opinion on global climate is-
sues. (See Figure 1)
Opening
somewhat
Fig
Furthermore, the public does not want government
to take immediate steps to reduce global warming
concerns. Instead, nearly three-fourths of respondents
GOVERNMENT SHOULD AVOID LONG-TERM
said the government should continue voluntary pro-
GLOBAL CLIMATE POLICY PROGRAMS
grams, continue research and avoid any treaty com-
Which one of the following policy options would you select:
mitments that would lock the United States in to long-
term costly programs if environmental benefits are
U.S. should take
Immediate steps
21%
not assured and costs would be high. (See Figure 2)
12
6
48
25
Option t/much
GLOBAL CLIMATE ISSUES NEED TO BE
Option /
somewhat
Don't know
ADDRESSED INTERNATIONALLY
U.S. should continue voluntary
Option 21
somewher
Flg. 2
programs and conduct more
Option2/much
research
The environment is an international issue for the
73%
American public, and Americans feel strongly that
it should be addressed by all nations. Respondents
do not feel that the United States and Europe should
GLOBAL WARMING CONERNS NEED To BE
be the only nations to limit energy use. Instead, all
ADDRESSED By ALL COUNTRIES
nations, including developing countries such as
China, India and Mexico, need to address global
Global warming concerns need to be addressed on a global scale by all countries including
China. India and Mexico and not just by a select few countries such as the US and Europe.
warming concerns. (Figure 3)
Agree
86%
Further, the public strongly opposes United States
19
taxpayers bearing the financial burden for develop-
4
ing nations to obtain new technologies SO they can
Disagree
67
10%
limit their emissions of carbon dioxide.
Agree/strongh
Agree/somewhal
Dontknow
Disayeer
somewhal
Fig. 3
o
Disagree/strungt,
R
CHARLTON RESEARCH COMPANY
Page 2
GLOBAL CLIMATE POLICY MUST NoT HINDER US ECONOMIC GROWTH
must have their foundations 11: sound economic policy and must not innder economic
growth Three fourths of respondents favor global climate policies that are market-based and cost effective
In addition. three fifths oppose the Administration's international permit proposal (See Figures 4 and 5)
PUBLIC OPPOSES A SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL
POLICIES SHOULD BE MARKET-BASED
PERMITS FOR ENERGY USE
AND COST-EFFECTIVE
Deven favor OR oppo. .1 proposed a system of international permits under which
Policies developed to address global warming concerns should be market-based
countries would be given an energy USe quota
and cost effective.
Favor
Agree
30%
75%
13
17
34
9
41
45
16
10
Envorsement
Agree/strongly
Oppose
Oppose sortware
Age es/somewtial
61%
Fig. 4
Disagree
Don't know
19%
Drage ee/somewhat
Flg. 5
Disagree/strongly
MERICANS OPPOSE INCREASED GASOLINE PRICES AND MANDATORY ENERGY RESTRICTIONS
Respondents were asked a series of trade-off questions on potential methods to reduce energy use. In every
situation, Americans opposed paying more for gasoline and other energy needs. For example, 53% of respon-
dents favor giving up the use of motor vehicles one or two days every week versus only 29% of respondents
who favor the government increasing the price of gasoline by 50 cents per gallon. Respondents were also
more willing to reduce home heating and
air conditioning by regulating their thermo-
stats rather than paying 50% more to heat
INDIVIDUALS UNWILLING To MAKE FINANCIAL
and cool their homes.
AND LIFESTYLE SACRIFICES
Now I am going 10 read you a list of things that you could personally do to address the issues of global
warming. Please tell me on a scale of one to ten with one meaning "not at all willing" and ten meaning
Respondents were also read a list of energy
"extremely willing" how willing you would be to
saving measures that could be used to re-
Not at all
duce energy consumption and address glo-
Moderately
Extremely
Don't
willing
willing
willing
know
%
%
%
%
bal warming. Eighty-eight percent of re-
Let the government limit the size home you buy
88
6
4
2
spondents were not at all willing to allow
Pay 75 cents more per gallon of gasoline
82
10
8
.
the government to limit the size home they
Pay 50 cents more per gallon of gasoline
68
18
13
1
could buy. Eighty-two percent of respon-
Agree to a rationing plan-- reducing vehicle use
57
23
18
2
to 1-2 days a week
dents were also not at all willing to pay 75
Index home mortgages so that people who
56
20
21
3
live close to work will pay less interest
cents more per gallon of gasoline, and 68%
Commit your family to use vehicle less and
51
26
20
3
posed a 50 cent per gallon of gas increase.
public transportation. walking, and biking more
e Figure 6)
Restrict drivers' licenses to people
45
20
32
3
over 21 and under 80
Fig.6
R CHARLTON RESEARCH COMPANY
Page 3
METHODOLOGY
A national telephone survey was conducted from May 17 - 23, 1997 among 800 adults 18 years and
older. The margin of error for a sample of this size is +3.5%. The sample was proportionate to the
country's demographics, including geography, gender and ethnicity.
Charlton Research Company is a research and consulting firm which has been developing campaign and
communications strategies for business and political clients since 1983. The company specializes in analyzing
changes in today's socio-political and economic environments. By combining research findings with public
policy issues and political insights, we provide clients with timely, cost-effective, intelligence and advice.
If there are any immediate issues or projects on which Charlton Research Company could be of assistance to
your organization, please contact Charles F. Rund, President, or Tracey Soeth, Marketing Director.
® CHARLTON RESEARCH COMPANY
1460 Maria Lane, Suite 410
Walnut Creck, CA 94596
510/274-5900 phone
510/937-9895 fax
2300 M Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, D.C: 20037
202/973-2849 phone
202/452-8832 fax
George Abar
202-887-8800
Sept. 15, 1997
1:38 PM
2/3
1200 18th Street, NW
Fax 202-887-8877
HIC
5th Floor
Email [email protected]
or
Washington, DC 20036
[first initial] + [lastname]@acpa.com
Phone 202-887-8800
Web http://www.eic.org
Environmental
Information
Center
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: George Abar. Peter Kelley
Sept. 9, 1997
202-887-8800
Public Alerted to Industry Misinformation Campaign
That Denies Need for Action on Global Warming
Corporations Behind Campaign Revealed as Major Polluters
WASHINGTON, Sept. 9-A coalition of some of the world's largest corporations today
announced a multimillion-dollar ad campaign meant to stop the Clinton Administration from
negotiating a treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow global warming.
Including leading oil, coal and automobile producers, the group calls itself the "Global Climate
Information Project.' But from documents already released, the Project's intent is clear: to spread
misinformation. It will spend $13 million this fall (according to the Financial Times) on TV. radio,
and print ads to confuse the public about climate change, diverting attention from their industries'
contribution to the problem in the same way that tobacco companies tried to deny evidence that
smoking causes health problems.
"It's dirty money. Their only intention is to mislead," said Philip E. Clapp, President of
Environmental Information Center. "They don't have the science on their side-2,600 scientists
worldwide have signed a statement warning that human-induced global warming is underway.
They don't have the economics on their side-2,500 economists have signed a statement that we
can grow our way out of this problem, and that the energy savings will even help our economy.
These are the polluters, and all they have is $13 million in dirty money to spend on a
misinformation campaign. It's not an Information Project, it's a Propaganda Project."
Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that human-induced climate change is underway
(see the Science Tuesday section of today's New York Times, for example), these corporations
and their trade associations can be expected to continue their aggressive public relations and
lobbying effort to convince the public and policymakers that we can pollute without consequence,
and that action will cost more than inaction.
On the science: The Global Climate Information Project on its internet home page recycles
"scientific" arguments that have been soundly refuted. An example is the "Leipzig Declaration,"
which corporations claim is a statement from "scientists" warning that "there is still no scientific
consensus on the subject of climate change." This PR stunt was debunked over a year ago. when
investigative reporting revealed that many of the signers are not what the public would consider
experts in climate science. Some of the signers have no professional scientific credentials, let alone
expertise in climate science. The declaration was instigated by Fred Singer, whose work has been
funded by Exxon, Shell, and ARCO, to name a few. (See St. Petersburg Times, July 29, 1996)
(MORE)
George Abar
202-887-8800
Sept. 15, 1997
1:38 PM
3/3
Industry misinformation campaign seeks inaction on global warming
Page 2
Consider the source: The Global Climate Information Project is comprised of some of the
most notorious polluters in America. Hiding behind their trade associations are companies that
have polluted our land, rivers, lakes, oceans and air for years. Following is a Lineup of some of
the companies associated with this ad campaign. It outlines only a very few of their environmental
problems, from multimillion dollar fines for polluting our water to responsibility for the release of
known cancer-causing chemicals. As the Lineup shows, it is likely that whatever these companies
and their lobbyists spend to stop the climate treaty, it will be dwarfed by what they spend in civil,
criminal. and administrative fines and other costs related to massively polluting our environment.
THE LINEUP
Leading corporations behind multimillion-dollar misinformation campaign
ARCO: Agreed to pay $363,000 in civil penalties and an annual fine of $63,000 until remediation
begins at a site in Pennsylvania. (As of SEC, Form 10-k, 12/31/96)
Chevron: Fined $8 million in 1992 for violating the Clean Water Act. (Press reports from
8/30/96) In 1988, the company was ordered to conduct an $86 million cleanup after it allowed
some 252 million gallons of fuel to leak into ground water below its El Segundo refinery.
(MultiNational Monitor, 9/9/97)
Chrysler: Facing possible civil penalties potentially higher than $100,000 from the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management for improper disposal of waste. At the same time, the
company was potentially responsible for at least 107 Superfund sites. (As of SEC, Form 10-K.
12/31/96)
Conrail: Sentenced to pay a fine of $2.75 million by the EPA in October 1996. Conrail pleaded
guilty in the criminal case to charges of discharging oil and grease into a Massachusetts river. (As
of EPA release, 2/25/97) In a separate case in Pennsylvania, Conrail has agreed to comply with an
EPA Administrative Order to extend public water to some 700 - 1000 homes and businesses near a
contaminated Conrail notes the site is only "allegedly" contaminated. (As of SEC. Form 10-
K. 12/31/96)
Dow Chemical: Facing proposed civil fines of $125,000 for violations of the Clean Water Act in
Michigan. The company paid a $100,000 civil penalty in a case brought by the Michigan Attorney
General for discharge of phosphorus and other chemicals into a Michigan river. (As of SEC, Form
10-K, 12/31/96)
Mobil: Agreed this year to pay a $125,000 penalty for violating standards for the release of
harmful smoke, dust, ash and other material, which can lead to heart and lung diseases. (As of
EPA release, 3/11/97)
Shell: The U.S. Department of Justice announced in June of 1997 a proposed agreement that
would require the company to pay a $678,000 civil penalty. DOJ alleges that Shell failed to control
benzene emissions. The chemical has been linked to various blood and bone marrow diseases and
leukemia. (As of EPA release, 6/27/97)
Texaco: A suit by the Justice Department seeks civil penalties of $4.2 million in connection with
oil spills along a Texaco company pipeline in Kansas. EPA is seeking $3.8 million in civil
penalties for alleged notification and reporting violations involving hazardous waste (PCBs) at a
Texas facility. Also pending are EPA charges that on 12 occasions, a Texaco company violated the
Clean Water Act by allowing oil to leak into surface water. (As of SEC, Form 10-K, 12/31/96)
###
All 50 States Lose Jobs by 2005
State
Jobs Lost
State
Jobs Lost
Alabama
49,410
Montana
5,310
Alaska
3,460
Nebraska
4,630
Arizona
33,800
Nevada
1,190
Arkansas
11,490
New Hampshire
5,860
California
154,750
New Jersey
47,850
Colorado
16,730
New Mexico
4,140
Connecticut
10,320
New York
101,100
Delaware
4,990
North Carolina
47,560
District of Columbia
4,840
North Dakota
1,110
Florida
74,030
Ohio
86,140
Georgia
60,990
Oklahoma
7,150
Hawaii
2,610
Oregon
21,390
Idaho
6,540
Pennsylvania
72,060
Illinois
68,710
Rhode Island
3,640
Indiana
37,380
South Carolina
27,210
lowa
11,480
South Dakota
1,530
Kansas
10,850
Tennessee
57,620
Kentucky
27,920
Texas
125,410
Louisiana
19,620
Utah
9,470
Maine
3,410
Vermont
2,250
Maryland
37,040
Virginia
48,120
Massachusetts
22,360
Washington
23,320
Michigan
55,990
West Virginia
17,070
Minnesota
18,130
Wisconsin
26,830
Mississippi
15,630
Wyoming
5,040
Missouri
22,730
TOTAL
1,548,920
"The Impact of Carbon Mitigation Strategies on Energy Markets, The National
Economy, Industry, and Regional Economies"
Prepared by Data Resources, Inc.
September 17, 1997
Overview
In response to international efforts to address global climate change, the Clinton
Administration has proposed adoption of legally binding targets and timetables for
reducing manmade emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels or lower. As the energy
sector accounts for the majority of these emissions, any proposals to reduce carbon
emissions would disproportionately affect the energy sector.
For this reason, The Labor Management Positive Change Process Fund (LMPCP), a
cooperative program between the United Mine Workers of America - BCOA,
commissioned a study to determine the effect emission mitigation strategies would have on
energy markets, the national economy, industry, and regional economies. In order to
ensure objectivity, the LMPCP commissioned Data Resources Inc., the same respected
research firm employed by the Federal Government, to conduct the study.
Unfortunately, for the American worker the study confirmed our worst fears. Without a
requirement in place that would commit developing nations like China and Mexico to
similar emission reduction policies as developed nations, the entire U.S. economy would
be placed at risk with little or no environmental benefit.
If the current proposal is enacted, use and transportation of coal would be greatly reduced
if not eliminated, gasoline prices would skyrocket, millions of jobs would be lost and
hundreds of thousands more sent overseas, and the increased cost of electricity would be
felt in the production of almost every consumer good.
Specific study results are summarized below.
Energy industries would be devastated, with coal mining by far the hardest hit of all
the industries followed by electric utilities, natural gas, gas utilities, petroleum refining,
and crude petroleum.
If emissions are stabilized at 1990 levels by 2010:
- nearly one out of every two coal miners will lose their jobs.
- 1.7 million more American jobs will be eliminated.
If emissions are stabilized by 2010, by 2020 gasoline prices would rise 43%, fuel oil
prices by 119%, and electricity prices by 94%.
Among others, this would hit low-income workers, senior citizens, retirees and those
who live on fixed incomes particularly hard.
If emissions are stabilized at 1990 levels by 2010, every region of the country suffers
heavy employment losses. The sharpest employment decline occurs in the East South
Central region (220,000 jobs) followed by the West South Central region (270,000
jobs). The largest absolute employment losses occur in the South Atlantic region
where 430,000 jobs will be lost.
Every sector of the economy - with the exception of the federal government - will
suffer job losses. Energy industries are particularly hard hit, but other sectors also
suffer - 110,000 jobs lost by 2005 in the transportation and public utility sector,
199,000 jobs lost in the manufacturing sector, 426,000 jobs lost in the services sector,
and 182,000 jobs lost in state and local governments.
Economic Policy Institute Analysis of the Economic Effects of Climate Change
Policies on U.S. Workers
September 1997
The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a Washington, D.C.-based economic think
tank with an impressive track record of analysis in wage and employment forecasts, was
asked to review the DRI study with special attention to employment impacts.
EPI's analysis supports the DRI results. It also highlights additional negative
impacts, including further wage erosion among American workers and significant
increases in the American trade deficit if the treaty is signed as proposed. Specific EPI
analysis results are summarized below.
Wages Decline:
GHG policies could cut wage growth in half over the next two decades. Real
wages decline in all three scenarios between 2000 and 2005, and by 2020 they
are only 3% to 4% higher than they were in 1995 (versus a 9% increase in the
base case). With such low rates of wage growth, the continued increase in
inequality will lead to falling wages for most workers, and will exacerbate the
widening income inequality in America.
Good Jobs Lost:
In the short run, overall employment growth will decrease by 1.5 to 2.6 million
jobs in 2006.
In the long run, 400,000 to 500,000 high paying job opportunities in mining,
transportation, and public utilities and 180,000 to 340,000 high-wage
manufacturing jobs would be eliminated in 2020.
Trade Deficit Widens
The GHG policies would increase the trade deficit by up to $240 billion.
Deficit increases of this size would have huge impacts on traded goods,
especially manufacturing-sector products.
Energy Prices Skyrocket:
Emission policies will sharply increase energy prices in the U.S. In the first
DRI scenario:
By 2010, gasoline prices will rise to $1.73 per gallon, 33% more than it
will cost with no treaty;
By 2020, the price per gallon will jump to $2.06 per gallon or 43%
more than it will cost with no treaty;
Natural Gas prices will increase 129% in 2010 and jump 157% by
2020;
Coal prices will rise 482% in 2010 and jump a staggering 761% by
2020;
Electricity prices will increase 66% in 2010 and 94% in 2020.
Energy prices increase even more sharply in an alternative scenario which
assumes more restrictive limits on emissions.
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. profile
DOB (Partial) (1 page)
n.d.
b(6)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Communications
Subject Files
OA/Box Number: 14294
FOLDER TITLE:
18. Global Warming / Climate Control 1997 [AFL-CIO]
2013-0306-F
jm1348
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - 144 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA|
b(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office 1(a)(2) of the PRAJ
h(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRAJ
an agency |(b)(2) of the FOIA|
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute |(b)(3) of the FOIA)
financial information |(a)(4) of the PRAJ
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information |(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRAJ
h(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy |(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
h(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells |(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
Blography of
CECIL E. ROBERTS, JR.
Cecil Edward Roberts, Jr., a sixth-generation coal miner and one of the labor
movement's most stirring orators, became president of the United Mine Workers of
America on October 22, 1995, having served as vice president of the union since
December 1982. Roberts succeeds Richard L. Trumka, who was elected
secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO.
In 1984, Roberts served on the UMWA negotiating team that won the first
national coal industry agreement in 20 years without a strike. Again in 1988, he was
è bargaining team that secured major contract gains without a strike. In 1984
and 1987, he headed the union's negotiating team that won contract improvements
from coal operators in the West. He played a key role on the negotiating team which
won a 1993 agreement with the Bituminous Coal Operators Association, ending a
bitter 8-month selective strike. The agreement included major gains in job security, the
largest pension increase in UMWA history, and the Labor-Management Positive
Change Process that empowers UMWA members with a voice in coal mining
operations.
In 1989, Roberts was the on-the-scene leader and day-to-day negotiator in
the UMWA's militant 10-month strike against the Pittston Co., which had cut off health
benefits to its retirees and was trying to walk away from its obligations to the UMWA
Health and Retirement Funds. For his role in that successful strike, Roberts received
the Rainbow Coalition's Martin Luther King award as well as awards from Citizen
Action and the Midwest Academy.
Born to Evelyn and Cecil E. Roberts, Sr., on
(b)(6)
Roberts grew
[001]
up on Cabin Creek in Kanawha County, WV. His great-uncle, Bill Blizzard, was a
signidary organizer during the West Virginia mine wars of the 1920s and a UMWA
president under John L. Lewis. Both of his grandfathers were killed in the
mines.
After college and military service in Vietnam, Roberts began work at Carbon
Fuels' No. 31 mine in Winifred, W.Va., in 1971. He worked for 6 years in a variety of
underground jobs including general inside laborer, shuttle car operator, unitrack
operator, greaser, beltman and mechanic.
His fellow Local Union 2236 members elected him to the local's mine, safety
and nolitical action committees. He became active in the Miners for Democracy
voment that restored control of the UMWA to its membership in December 1972.
In 1976, he taught contract education classes for District 17. He served as an
investigator for district and International attorneys in the Carbon Fuels lawsuit which
ended in a major UMWA victory when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an
International union cannot be held liable for unauthorized work stoppages in which
only local unions are involved.
In 1977, his local elected him a delegate to the District 17 convention, where
Te chaired the constitution committee. The same year, he was elected vice president
of District 17 by a 2-to-1 margin. In May 1981, he was reelected without opposition.
On November 9, 1982, Roberts was elected vice president of the UMWA,
again by a 2-to-1 margin, running on a slate headed by Trumka and including John J.
Banovic, who was elected secretary-treasurer. The Trumka-Roberts-Banovic team
was reelected without opposition 5 years later.
On November 10, 1992, Roberts was reelected by an 80-percent margin to
his third term as vice president. Trumka was reelected president and Jerry D. Jones,
treasurer.
In December, 1995, Roberts assumed the UMWA presidency, following
Richard Trumka's resignation to become the AFL-CIO's new secretary-treasurer.
Subsequently, Jones was named vice president and Carlo Tarley was appointed by
Roberts to be the UMWA's new secretary -treasurer.
In August 1997, Roberts was elected by acclamation to a new, five-year term,
winning the support of 99 percent of the locals participating in the union's nominating
process. He is once again joined at the union's helm by Vice President Jones and
Secretary-Treasurer Tarley. Also of note, for the first time in UMWA history, the entire
leadership team's slate, including tellers and auditors, ran unopposed.
In addition to serving as UMWA president, Roberts has also held office or
worked on behalf of several other organizations over the years, including serving on
the Committee for Employer Support of Veteran Employment and the West Virginia
Employment Opportunities and Economic Development Commission. In 1985, he was
elected president of the National Council of the Holmes Safety Association.
Roberts has also served on the boards of directors of Blue Cross and Blue
of Southern West Virginia and the Cabin Creek Clinic in Cabin Creek, W.Va.,
and on the Advisory Committee of the Black Lung Program at the Cabin Creek Clinic.
He has been elected as General Vice President of the National Council of Senior
Citizens by their Executive Board. He has also been appointed to serve as a member
of the West Virginia University Institute for Labor Studies and Research Advisory
Board in 1996. He is a member of the Vietnam Veterans of America and the American
Legion.
Roberts graduated in 1964 from East Bank High School in East Bank, W.Va.
He was drafted into the U.S. Army in May 1966, serving a year in Vietnam with the
196th Light Infantry Brigade, Americal Division. After his military service, he attended
Beckley Junior College for two years, majoring in sociology. In 1987, he graduated
from West Virginia Technical College.
Roberts is married to the former Carolyn Sue Stewart. They have a son, Kyle
Edward, a daughter, Melissa Dawn, and two grandsons, Aaron and Brandon.
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
002. profile
DOB (Partial); POB (Partial) (1 page)
08/1997
b(6)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Communications
Subject Files
OA/Box Number: 14294
FOLDER TITLE:
18. Global Warming / Climate Control 1997 [AFL-CIO]
2013-0306-F
jm 1348
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - 144 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)|
PI National Security Classified Information |(a)(1) of the PRA|
h(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office |(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute |(a)(3) of the PRA
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute |(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy |(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
Peabody
Biography
PETER B. LILLY
Present Position:
President and Chief Operating Officer, Peabody Holding Company, Inc.,
St. Louis, Mo., July 1995-present.
Responsibilities:
Responsible for overseeing Peabody Holding's North American coal
operations that produce approximately 143 million tons of coal annually.
Past Positions:
Executive Vice President, Peabody Holding Company, Inc., St. Louis, Mo.,
1994-1995.
President, Eastern Associated Coal Corp., Charleston, W.Va., 1991-1994.
President, Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation and Senior Vice President, Kerr-
McGee Corp., Oklahoma City, Okla., 1989-1991.
Vice President-Marketing and Planning, Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation,
1988-1989.
General Manager, Galatia Mine, Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation,
Harrisburg, III., 1983-1988.
Director of Administration, Kerr McGee Coal Corporation, 1981-1983.
Manager-Maintenance Planning, Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation, 1980-
1981.
Management Consultant (Coal Industry), Emory Ayers Associates, New
York, N.Y., 1977-1980.
Education:
U.S. Military Academy, West Point, N.Y., B.S. General Engineering and
Applied Science, 1970.
Harvard University, M.B.A., Finance, Industrial Marketing and Operations
Management, 1977.
Northwestern University, Kellogg Graduate School of Management,
Advanced Executive Program, 1988.
Military Service:
U.S. Army, 1970-1975, Captain.
Activities:
Chairman, West Virginia Coal Association (1993-1994); member, National
Coal Council (1989-present); Board of Directors, American Mining
Congress (1989-1991); Board of Directors, National Coal Association
(1989-1991 and 1995-present); Board of Advisors, West Virginia
University, Morgantown, W.Va. (1991-present); and Young Presidents'
Organization.
Born:
Immediate Family:
(b)(6)
Office Address:
Peabody Holding Company, Inc.
701 Market Street, Suite 700
[ 002]
St. Louis, Missouri 63101-1826
Phone: (314) 342-7780
Fax:
(314) 342-7720
8/97
Greenpeace International
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON PATRICK MICHAELS
The IPCC has found that Michael's work on pattern detection is seriously flawed.
Michaels is paid by the fossil fuel industry and is opposed to any action on greenhousc gas
emission on economic grounds.
SUPPORTS COAL PRODUCERS AND IS OPPOSED TO ANY ACTION ON EMISSION
REDUCTIONS BECAUSE OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS
"Any attempt to force emissions reductions will Impose further stringencies on
economic machines that are already well-oiled. There is clearly advantage to
some, decadally stagnant economies (referring 10 European countries) if they can
by force of the UN or other international law reduce the productivity of the
competition (referring to the USA and Australia)"
Statement to Coal Producer's Conference in Australia in May 1996 in paper entitled "The
Satanic Gases: Greenhouse Effect Science and Policy". Michaels criticised the IPCC
science but his motivation is clear from his opening statement.
The Australian Coal industry invited Patrick Michaels to address their conference in May,
he also visited New Zealand at the Invite of the influential right wing Business Round
Table lobby group. (Australia and New Zealand were key countries associated with the
JUSCANZ group at the Berlin Climate Summit: a group associated with blocking concrete
action till the last minute). Michaels was cast by Industry as an IPCC scientist and a
moderate. The IPCC has in fact reviewed Michaels work and found that it does not pass
crucial scientific tests of veracity or accuracy (sec attachment).
EXPOSED IN HARPER's MAGAZINE AS PART OF FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY
PUBLIC RELATIONS CAMPAIGN
Harper's Magazine in December 1995 reported that:
"In the last year and a half. one of the leading oil Industry public relations outlets,
the Global Climate Coalition, has spent more than a million dollars to downplay
the threat of climate change."
"For the most part the industry has relied on a smull band of skeptics . Dr
Richard Lindzen, Dr Patrick Michaels, Dr Robert Balling, Dr Sherwood Idso, and
Dr Fred Singer, among others who have proved extraordinarily adept at draining
the issue of all sense of crisis."
" in this persistent well funded campaign of dental they have become
interchangeable ornaments on the hood of a high-powered engine of
disinformation."
IPCC HAS FOUND HIS WORK ON PATTERN DETECTION HAS SERIOUS
PROBLEMS
The IPCC as is required by its mandate has reviewed the claims of scientists such as
Patrick Michaels. BD Santer, TML Wigley, TP Barnett, et al in Chapter 8 Detection of
1
Climate Change and Attribution of Causes. (In Climate Change 1995: The Science of
Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996, p.8.12.) state:
"The only other recent pattern-oriented work that has attempted 10 find CO2-only
signal in observed surface air temperature data is that by Michaels et al. (1994).
This investigation makes use of the time-dependent signal from a transient
greenhouse warming experiment performed with the GFDL CGCM (Manabe et al.
1991). The premise underlying this investigation is that if the model-predicted
transient signal is not found in the observed temperature record, the model is
wrong. The authors fail to find this signal in the observed data, a result that is
used to justify a condemnation of climate models in general.
"There are a number of serious problems with this unalysis. As discussed in
Section 8.2.4, a time dependent greenhouse warming experiment performed with a
fully-coupled CGCM does not have a pure signal output. The output consists of
signal plus noise, and the early decades of such simulations are often dominated
by the noise. A null result on the basis of a single transit experiment such as this
does not constitute "proof" that the model is erroneous, nor that the scarched-for
signal does exist.
"Furthermore, the Michaels el al. study categorically dismisses the possibility that
their failure to find a time-dependent greenhouse-gas signal may be due to the
making effects of anthropogenic sulphate aerosols. This dismissal is made on the
following grounds. Michaels et al. argue that If sulphate aerosols have had an
impact on climate, then the impact should he very small or close to regions remote
from areas where the forcing due to aerosols is large. This hypothesis is not
supported by recent GCM experiments, which suggest that atmospheric general
circulation can, via dynamics, produce large remote surface temperature responses
to highly-regionalised forcing by sulphate aerosols (Taylor and Penner, 1994:
Roeckner et al. 1995; Mitchell el al. 1995b).
"The Michaels et al. Results are difficult to compare with those of other Stage 2
studies that have searched for a CO2-signal, primartly due to differences in
definition of the signal, methodology and in the areas of the globe considered.
Nevertheless, their fallure 10 find the sub-global -scale pattern of this signal is
consistent with the results of Santer et al. (1993, 1995a). A likely explanation for
this result is that some part of the regional-scale features of a CO2-only signal has
been obscured by acrosol effects (see Section 8.4.2.3)."
References: Michaels PJ, Knappenberger PC. (tay DA (1994). Journal of the Franklin Institute, 311A, 123-133.
Manabe S, Stouffer RJ, Spelman MI, Bryan K (1991). J. Climate, 4. 785-818. Taylor KE, Penner JE (1994).
Nature, 369, 734-736. Roockner E, Siebert 1, Feichter J (1995). In Acrosol Forcing of Climate. John Wiley and
Sons (in press). Mitchell JFB, Davis RA, Ingram WJ, Senior CA (19956). J. Climate (accepted). Sanicr BD,
Wigley TML. Jones PD (1993). Clim. Dyn., 8, 265-276. Santer BD, Taylor KE, Wigley TML, Permer JE,
Jones I'D, Cubasch U (1995a). Clim. Dyn. (In press).
FOR FUTHER INFORMATION:
Bill Hare Climate Policy Director, Grecnpeace International
Kirsty Hamilton, Climate Campaigner, Greenpeace International
In Geneva 7-21 July, 1996: Hotel Longchamp Tel: 41-22-731-6750 Fax: 41-22-738-
0007
In Amsterdam: Tel: +31-20-5236242 or 22
Fax: +31-20-
5236200
2
THE NEED FOR ACTION To REDUCE GREENHOUSE GASSES:
A Clear Consensus Among Scientists, Economists And Other Leaders
Over 2600 American Scientists Agree On The Need For Action:
"We are scientists who are familiar with the causes and effects of climatic change as summarized
recently by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We endorse those reports and
observe that the further accumulation of greenhouse gases commits the earth irreversibly to further
global climate change and consequent ecological, economic and social disruption. The risks
associated with such changes justify preventive action through reductions in emissions of greenhouse
"
gases.
-- Statement singed by over 2600 American Scientists on Global Climate Disruption,
June 18, 1997 (emphasis added)
More Than 2000 Economists, Including Eight Nobel Laureates, Agree On The Need For Action:
"As economists, we believe that global climate change carries with it significant environmental,
economic, social, and geopolitical risks, and that preventive steps are justified. Economic studies have
found that there are many potential policies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions for which the total
benefits outweigh the total costs. For the United States in particular, sound economic analysis shows
that there are policy options that would slow climate change without harming American living
standards, and these measures may in fact improve U.S. productivity in the longer run. "
-- Economists' Statement on Climate Change, January 1997, Endorsed by over 2000
Economists, including eight Nobel Laureates (emphasis added)
Many In The Business Community Agree On The Need For Action:
"[T]here is now an effective consensus among the world's leading scientists and serious and
well-informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on
the climate and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature.
[T]here is mounting concern about two stark facts. The concentration of carbon dioxide is rising,
and the temperature of the earth's surface is increasing. If we are all to take responsibility for the
future of our planet, then it falls to us to begin to take precautionary action now."
-- John Browne, Group Chief Executive, British Petroleum from a May 19, 1997 address at
Stanford University (emphasis added)
"[International Climate Change Partnership] ICCP continues to recognize the climate change issue
as an important matter with which governments should be concerned. Our companies have
determined that the current state of scientific understanding requires a prudent long-term approach to
address this issue."
-- Prepared Statement of Kevin J. Fay, Executive Director International Climate Change
Partnership Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International
Economic Policy on June 19, 1997 (NOTE: Among the member of the ICCP are companies
including British Petroleum, Chevron, Dupont, Enron and AT&T)
PRAFT
OPPOSITION TO ACTIONS TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT:
WRONG THEN, WRONG Now
INDUSTRY COALITIONS -- WRONG THEN, WRONG Now:
William D. Fay, administrator of the Clean Air Working Group, an industry coalition whose
members include USX Corp., LTV Steel Corp. and the Aluminum Association, "predicts a loss
of 600,000 jobs nationwide, primarily in the high-sulfur coal industry;... price increases of 10
cents to 15 cents per gallon for reformulated gasoline in the nine citites in which it is required;
and an additional $500 per new car, in addition to many other costs. "[The Oil Daily, 11/16/90]
Fay also said, "The new Clean Air Act will dramatically change our lifestyle and the way most
companies do business. Fully implemented, the act will add $51 billion each year to the $32
billion Americans already spend for cleaner air." [The Oil Daily, 11/16/90]
The Clean Air Working Group also said of the Clean Air Act, "Consumer costs for goods and
services will rise, jobs will be lost and many more will be less seriously affected, and the nation's
competitiveness will be eroded." [The Oil Daily, 5/28/90]
"The Clean Air Working Group (CAWG), industry's 2,000-member lobbying coalition, pegs the
added yearly price tag [of the Clean Air Act of 1990] at more than $50 billion. "[1990
Penton/IPC, Industry Week, 11/19/90]
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS -- WRONG THEN, WRONG Now:
The National Association of Manufacturers claims that the Clean Air will put 'millions of
jobs at risk. Richard Siebert, NAM's vice-president, said "This bill will put millions of
American workers at risk, put thousands of small companies out of business, further weaken our
economy and limit our capacity to become energy independent. "[Chemical Marketing Reporter,
8/20/90]
"Richard Siebert, National Association of Manufacturer's vice president of resources and
environment, says American consumers and businesses will face sharply higher prices if the
current proposals become law. Mr. Siebert says that Americans can also expect higher gasoline
costs due to the reformulated gas mandates in the bill. Reformulated gas must be sold in the
smoggiest cities by 1994. "This gas is more expensive. Government and industry price estimates
range between 10 cents to 25 cents per gallon higher for reformulated gas. New emission
standards will also add $600 to the base price of a new car,' says Mr. Siebert. [Chemical
Marketing Reporter, 8/20/90]
DRAFT
THE AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE -- WRONG THEN, WRONG Now:
Inflating the cost of gas from environmental regulation. The Clean Air act pushed for
reformulated gas to cut down on harmful auto emissions. This is what the American Petroleum
Institute and Mobil said it would do to gas prices: "American Petroleum Institute president
Charles DiBona said the cleaner fuel would likely add about 5 cents to the price of gallon of
gasoline at the pump while Mobil's Murray said the added cost would probably be closer to the
15 cents a gallon. "[1991 Reuters, 11/18/91]
BUSINESS ROUND TABLE, WRONG THEN, WRONG Now:
Claims the Clean Air Act will 'Shut Down' Industries At a Business Round Table press
conference on the Clean Air Act, Philip X. Masciantonia, a spokesman for USX Corp., warned,
"Such a law could have serious side effects, namely, reduced industrial production, job losses,
employment dislocations and possibly even 'shutdowns' of industries. "[State News Service,
8/20/90]
Claims of harm to particular industries:
"The electric-utility industry, for example, maintains that the acid-rain provisions [of the Clean
Air Act of 1990] alone will cost it as much as $7 billion a year. "[1990 Penton/IPC, Industry
Week, 11/19/90]
Industry groups say Clean Air Act will kill industries. "Implementation of the Clean Air Act
regulations will force smaller size refineries, which produce 50,000 barrels of crude oil or less a
day, to sell their facilities or consolidate, a number of analysts said 'This legislation is going to
squeeze [small refineries] out of business," said Debra Coy, analyst at County Nat West
Washington Analysis Group. [Portfolio Letter, 11/18/91]
The Basics of Global Climate Change
What's the Problem?
The Earth's climate is changing. Over the past century, global temperature has increased, sea levels have
risen, glaciers have receded, and precipitation has increased. While some amount of climate change is
natural, mounting scientific evidence suggests an emerging human role.
By burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests, we are releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into the
air. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It traps some of the sun's heat and keeps the planet warmer than it
would otherwise be.
A certain balance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is necessary to sustain life as we know it, and natural
processes have maintained this balance for millennia. We are changing it. Just since the Industrial
Revolution, we have increased the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere by nearly 30%.
Unless actions are taken to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the atmospheric concentration of this gas
could more than double in the next century. Scientists expect that this will cause global temperature to
increase between 2.0 - 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit -- a faster rate of change than any seen in 10,000 years.
Why do we Care?
Rising global temperatures will further change the Earth's climate. Exactly how much and how fast
remains uncertain. Nevertheless, the world's best climate scientists have carefully examined the potential
impacts of projected temperature increases and have concluded that they are likely to be serious.
Warmer temperatures could increase heat-related deaths and lead to the spread of certain infectious diseases
into formerly inhospitable areas. They could shift zones of agricultural productivity and threaten the
survival of many animal and plant species. Rising sea levels could flood thousands of miles of U.S.
coastline and render near-shore areas more susceptible to tidal surges and storms. More extreme weather,
such as floods and droughts, could take additional lives and cause severe economic damage. While these
changes could profoundly affect our society, they are likely to have even more serious consequences in the
developing world where countries have less capacity to adapt.
What are we Doing?
Climate change is enormously complicated, and there remains a great deal about it that we do not
understand. Still, almost every government in the world recognizes that climate change is a real and
legitimate concern that merits a policy response.
Five years ago at the Earth Summit in Rio, the nations of the world agreed to an international climate
change treaty. Under this treaty, the U.S. and other developed nations were to reduce their emissions of
greenhouse gases to an agreed level by the year 2000.
For a variety of reasons, most countries, including ours, will not meet the Rio goal. This fact, coupled with
better scientific evidence of global climate change, has led nations to try to negotiate a new climate change
agreement. The plan is to conclude this agreement at a meeting in Japan this December.
The United States is now in the process of developing its policy for what such an agreement should look
like and how emissions could be reduced domestically.
Wide Open
pollutants from coal-fired
moratorium on leasing of
To date there have been
electric power plants. He also
Federally-owned low-sulphur
32 full-page ads, most of
contends that emission stand-
coal deposits in the West and
them running in, the New
ClashOver
ards set by state governments
by the Clean Air Act and by
York Times, the Washington
are unreallstic."
E.P.A. regulations which re-
Post, the Wall Street Journal,
At 65, Donald Cook does
strict the use of Eastern and
Time, Newsweek, U.S. News
not look or act his age. There
Midwestern
high-sulphur
Coal and
are no lines in his face, no
coal.
Continued on page 14
pouches beneath the sharp
Clean Air
eyes. He speaks-at length-
with fervor and some elo-
quence.
He was recently quoted in
Nation's Business magazine
By E. W. KENWORTHY
as saying he got his greatest
pleasure out of work. He also
WASHINGTON-"All of a
admitted that "I don't mind
sudden it's their environ-
being abrasive If it will make
ment and we're monsters,"
a contribution."
said Donald C. Cook, bitter-
A colleague said recently,
ly. the other day at the end
"Don Cook may sometimes
of a three-hour interview.
be wrong, but he's never in
By "we" Mr. Cook meant
doubt."
the electric utility industry
Mr. Cook believes that he
in general and particularly
and the "rabid environmen-
the American Electric Power
talists" are met at Armaged-
Company, of which he is
don, and that he is battling
chairman and chief executive
for the Lord, the nation, the
officer. American Electric,
economy, the electric power
with $5-billion in assets, is
industry-and American Elec-
the nation's largest privately
tric.
owned generator of electrici-
His critics grant his sin-
ty-and 93 per cent of its
cerity, but some of them-
generating capacity is coal
including John R. Quarles,
fired.
E.P.A. deputy administrator
By "they" Mr. Cook meant
-question whether Mr.
what he calls "rabid environ-
Cook's priorities are neces-
mentalists," most especially
sarily in the above order. Mr.
the Federal Environmental
Cook has chosen Mr. Quarles
Protection Agency. which in
as the prime target of his
his view is infested with
abrasiveness because he re-
gards him as the toughest
m.
For nearly a year, Mr.
and smartest of the agency's
Cook, a former chairman of
bureaucrats.
Donald C. Cook
the Securities and Exchange
His critics, inside and out-
Commission, mas been direct-
side the industry, think Mr.
tng from his office at No. 2
Cook has overstated his case
Broadway, in New York, a
and been unnecessarily harsh.
INSIDE
furious-and some think
But they give him good
wrong-headed-battle against
marks for fighting in the
what he regards as the "ig-
open rather than trying to
norant" dogmatists and ideal-
work his will behind the
The Economic Scene-Consumer
ists in charge of the agency's
scenes in Washington as so
enforcement of the 1970
many industry officials do.
attitudes and their impact
P. 16
Clean Air Act.
Seeking to prevail by gen-
He is particularly enraged
erating public support for his
by E.P.A.'s aggressive cham-
crusade, Mr. Cook last Feb-
Bank Holding Company Expansion
2
pioning of "scrubbers" to
ruary launched an advertis-
capture pollutants in flue
ing campaign built around
cases from coal-fired steam
three points:
generating plants. Mr. Cook
9That the solution of the
Great Western Disunited
3
contends that these "mon-
energy crisis lies in generat-
strous contraptions" will not
ing more power and not sim-
work reliably, and are ruin-
ply conserving it,
That the way to do this is
Arabs Investing in Terra Firma
5
ously expensive and unnec-
essary.
to relieve the nation progres-
But Mr. Cook's offensive
sively from its dependence
also extends to what he calls
on Middle East oil by ex-
Rocketeller and Venezuela
7
the "unreasonable" standards
ploiting its abundant coal
themselves - namely the
reserves,
nealth-related standards for
9That this sensible solu-
Myash and sulphur dioxide,
is being thwarted by the De-
Oil Discoveries Up; Prices Down?
15
which are the two principal
partment of the Interior's
THE NEW YORK TIMES, SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1974
Donald Cook Battles Clean Air Standards
Continued from page 1
But the E.P.A. also admits that the evi-
dence is still "tentative" and it has not set
World Report and Business Week.
ads have also run in the 69 daily
AEP
-At a Glance
sulphate standards.
Mr. Cook leaps on this admission. "There
2 weekly papers in the seven-state
have been a lot of statements on sulphates,
where A.E.P. sells power. Those states
are Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, Ken-
3 mos. ended Sept. 30
1974
1973
he said, "all cast in terms of suspicion. If
We start running a government on sus-
tucky, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan, served
Revenues
$338,300,000
$239,100,000
picion, we are not far from a knock on the
by the operating subsidiaries of the parent
Net income
45,700,000
45,000,000
door in the night. If they have anything on
company: the Appalachian Power Company,
Earnings per share
62 c
68 c
sulphates, let them promulgate regulations."
the Indiana and Michigan Electric Compa-
nies, the Kentucky Power Company, the
The E.P.A., meanwhile, is still holding out
12 mos. ended Dec. 31
1973
1972
Kingsport Power Company, the Michigan
for "scrubhers," as the most immediately
Power Company, the Ohio Power Company
Revenues
$966,500,000
$860,600,000
promising control system for sulphur diox-
and the Wheeling Electric Company.
Net Income
182,600,000
156,300,000
Ide. They do as Mr. Cook contends, have
A.E.P.'s interlocking grid is, for most of
Earning per share
2.85
2.63
"horrendous problems."
its length, built atop bituminous coal fields,
The chemistry is simple in theory but
some mined deeply and others stripped.
Assets, Dec. 31, 1973
$5,071,320,000
tricky in practice: the chemical engineering
Stock price (N.Y.S.E.). Nov, 22, 1974
143/4
is complex and difficult. Calcium sulphate
Some of the ads have drawn strong pro-
Stock price, 1974 range
and sulphite formed In the process plug up
tests not only from environmental groups
but also from Russell Peterson, chairman
Employes
16,303
spray nozzles and valves. Every few days,
the scale has to be removed by high-pres,
of the White House Council on Environ-
sure hoses, or, in bad cases, with hammers,
mental Quality, and John C Sawhill, de-
Major subsidiaries:
requiring a shutdown.
posed head of the Federal Energy Adminis-
Appalachian Power (Va.), Indians and Michigan Electric, Kentucky Power,
Mr. Cook cites the recent findings by
tration.
Kingsport Power (Tenn.), Michigan Power, Ohio Power, Wheeling Electric (W.Va.)
hearing examiners for the Ohio Environ-
For example, in several ads last spring.
mental Protection Agency, who said that no
A.E.P. inveighed against those "who shrill
scrubbing had yet met the criteria set by
for less energy and no growth," asserting
that the government energy conservation
nation's air each year. The E.P.A. has set
mittent control system"-tall stacks, 800
the National Academy of Engineering in
proposals would "generate galloping unem-
an atmosphere standard of 80 micrograms
feet or more, of which A.E.P. already has
1970-that a scrubber should operate for a
ployment, and reduce America to the "bad
per cubic meter, equivalent to 0.03 parts of
11, to disperse the sulphur dioxide high in
year with 90 per cent availability on a 100
life."
the gas to per million parts of air, effective
the air and allow the standard to be met
megawatt or larger unit.
Government officials Immediately pro-
June 1, 1975. Many states have set much
most of the time at ground level. He argues
Furthermore, he contends that disposal of
tested that Washington does not advocate
that it is wrong for the E.P.A., and the
the "massive amounts of sludge" produced
tougher standards. The target sought by
"no growth" in generating capacity, nor a
the E.P.A. and most states is a 90 per cent.
states, to base regulations on measurements
and possible leaching from disposal sites
out-back, but rather reduction in the ennual
plus control of emissions.
ht the top of the stack rather than at
into the water supply involve environmental
rate of growth of energy consumption-
Mr. Cook outlined four strategies for at-
ground level "where people live."
and health hazards greater than those posed
by dispersal of sulphur dioxide by tall
from about 5 to 2.5 percent.
tacking the sulphur dioxide problem, three
A ground monitoring system, of which
stacks.
Mr. Sawhill wrote the company: "I urge
of which he approves, and the one-scrub-
A.E.P. has several, would warn a plant
E.P.A. officials reply that the problems
you to cease this kind of advertising It
bers-that he violently opposes.
manager whenever atmospheric conditions
are being surmounted, that several units are
masks the total energy problem and gives
First, he said, is "conforming fuel," with
create excessive ground-level concentrations
approaching the reliability criteria, and that
the incorrect impression that conservation
less than 1 per cent sulphur content. He
of the gas. The manager could then switch
during the last year the numbers of scrub-
Implies strongly negative impacts."
says that 46 per cent of A.E.P.'s generating
to an emergency supply of low-sulphur coal
bers in operation, under construction or
Mr. Peterson wrote that the "galloping
capacity is already in compliance with state
or cut back his production and call on
planned, has jumped from 44 to 93. This
unemployment" ad was not only "nonsense"
emission limitations, burning Appalachian
another plant in the system to make up the
represents hundreds of millions of dollars
but "subversive of the public interest."
and Western low-sulphur coal.
deficit.
of capital investment and operating and
Mr. Cook was infuriated when Mr. Peter-
The E.P.A. agrees on this solution, if
Mr. Cook's advocacy of tall stacks has
maintenance costs.
son released the letter to the press and so
there is strict control of strip-mining to
the backing not only of much of the indus-
to then-President Nixon, complaining
prevent the ravaging of Western farm and
try but also of the Federal Power Com-
These officials are particularly angered
the "scurrilous" letter, and asking
grazing lands. But it asserts that Western
mission, The Federal Energy Administration
by what they regard as misleading state-
bu fully Investigate both the official
low-sulphur coal will not be available in
and the White House Office of Manage-
ments in some A.E.P. ads. For example:
andestine activities of Mr. Peterson
anything like the quantities needed until
ment and Budget.
in the conduct of his office."
the mid-nineteen-eighties.
But the E.P.A. responds that intermittent
"Applied to a 12,000 megawatt, coal-fired
In any event, the $3.7-million ad cam-
Second, as a long-range solution, Mr. Cook
control is acceptable as an interim device,
system, limestone scrubbers would in only
would remove the gas by a "front-end"
but not as a permanent control measure. It
five years produce enough oozy gook
paign represents small change for A.E.P.,
to cover, for instance, 10 square miles of
which had operating revenues of $967-mll-
process-such as coal liquefaction or gasi-
argues that neither low-sulphur coal nor an
lion, and profits of $183-million in 1973. Its
fication-leaving a clean fuel to be burnt.
alternate source of power may be available
Washington, D. C., five feet deep." (A later
ad, citing an Interior Department figure on
profit margin was 18.9 per cent, much above
Again, the E.P.A. agrees, but Mr. Quarles
during a pollution alert.
the industry average. Revenues for 1974 are
notes that A.E.P. and Allegheny Power Sys-
More important, the agency contends. the
sludge produced, raised the depth to 10 feet.)
tem, Inc., are each contributing only $1-mil-
tall stacks simply spew out sulphur dioxide
Agency officials point out that 12,000
expected to reach $1.2-billion although
lion over two years to a $13-million research
to fall at a distance as acid rain or as mi-
megawatts is almost as large as the entire
earnings may be down somewhat because
nute sulphate particles. And it takes the po-
seven-state A.E.P. system and that sludge
of high interest payments.
project on liquefaction, with the govern-
The company's 20 power plants have a
ment putting up the rest.
tential health hazards of those two very
would be dispersed among many, relatively
generating capacity of more than 15,000
Mr. Cook's third strategy, is the "inter-
seriously indeed.
small, remote sites and at a depth much
more than five or 10 feet.
megawatts (exceeded only by the Tennes-
In the light of industry experience with
see Valley Authority system) and it expects
scrubbers so far, the E.P.A. draws two
to expand to 26,000 megawatts by 1982.
conclusions.
Some years ago it decided to rely on coal
How Scrubbers Work
The first is that, because of the amount
and not to go for nuclear power in a big
of sludge, the usual lime and limestone
way. Its only nuclear plant will not start up
processes are not well adapted to power
until next month. It also has one oil-fired
plants in, or near big cities. If such plants
and two hydroelectric plants, all small.
The contraversial scrubber of gases in a
forced up the stack by large induction fans.
use high-sulphur coal, they will probably
In 1973, the A.E.P. system consumed 31
coal-fired operation-to vastly over-simplify
The sludge containing the calcium sul-
have to Install a system that produces
million tons of coal-nearly one-tenth of
-is a large metal container fitted with
phate and calcium sulphite-truly, as scrub-
usable products such as sulphur or sulphuric
the coal used by the nation's electric utili-
nozzles and baffles.
ber critics charge, "an oozy gook": - is
acid, rather than sludge. (Boston Edison has
ties and about one-fifteenth of all the coal
From a plant's boller; flue gas containing
pumped from the settling tanks to small
a 150 megawatt plan using a magneshum
consumed in the whole country. Its own
tokie, selphut. dioxide is pumped into this
ponds where it is stabilized by the addition
oxide scrubber producing sulphuric acid
mines supply about one-fifth of its coal and
container and there churned with a chemical
of flyash and lime nd partially dried. Final-
and the Philadelphia Electric Company is
by 1981 are expected to supply 50-per cent.
compound-mest commonly a slurry of lime
ly, It is trucked or sent by pipe to a disposal
planning to invest $68-million in magnesium
or limestone-that reacts with the dioxide
site :0 harden.
oxide scrubbers.)
The average sulphur content in what
to produce calcium sulphate and calcium sul-
The principal companies to have designed
The second conclusion is that a large
A.E.P. burns is 2.5 per cent, but about one-
phite. These solids can be drawn off with the
scrubber systems for major plants, of 100
number of coal-fired plants-from 65 to 100
third is only I per cent or less. The rest,
water into large tanks where they settle out.
megawatts or larger, include Combustion
-will not be able to comply with its stand
particularly that burned by Ohio Power, the
Most of the water is then pumped back into
Engineering. Inc.: the Babcock & Wilcox
ards by 1977 by installing scrubbers. The
biggest company in the system, is high
the scrubber.
Company; the Chemical Construction Cor-
time is too short for design, manufacture
sulphur.
After removal of the sulphur dioxide, the
poration, a subsidiary of the General Tire
and Installation. Therefore, these. plants
There Is no dispute between Mr. Cook
remaining flue gas-mostly water vapor and
and Rubber Company; the Peabody Galion
must be given variances, or the law must
and the E.P.A. over the availability of tech-
non-toxic carbon dloxide is reheated and
Corporation, and Research-Cottrell, Inc.
be changed to extend the compliance date,
nology to deal with flyash, also called
probably to the mid-nineteen-eighties.
particulates, which give the plume from an
Where does A.F.P. fit into these conclu-
sions?. Mr. Cook boasts that his company
unregulated power plant its grey-black
color.
has always been a "pioneering" utility, and
Electrostatic precipitators, which act like
cites its development of very high temper-
gnet, were developed in the nineteen-
ature boilers, the nation's largest generating
and have been improved to the
units high voltage transmission and ad-
where nearly all flyash can be col-
vanced circuit breakers and so on.
When Mr. Dowd, the general counsel;
were environmentalists long before
stressed this point at E.P.A. hearings a
it was popular," says one A.E.P. ad, adding
year ago, however, an-agency official ob-
that the company tested its first precipi-
served that "A.E.P. is willing to take the
tator in 1941. However, it did not install
risk (of investing larger sums/when the
precipitators in all its plants, and did not
technology in question happens to be gen-
keep abreast of the developing technology.
erating technology but is unwilling to take
As a result, in order to meet the standards
any risk when it comes to pollution control,
at least sulphur pollution control."
under the Clean Air Act by 1977, A.E.P. is
To which Mr. Cook replies that A.F.P.
investing nearly $500-million to "backfit"
but "subversive of the public interest."
and Western low-sulphur coal.
deficit.
of capital investment and operating and
Mr. Cook was infuriated when Mr. Peter-
The E.P.A. agrees on this solution, if
Mr. Cook's advocacy of tall stacks has
maintenance costs.
son released the letter to the press and so
there is strict control of strip-mining to
the backing not only of much of the indus-
wrote to then-President Nixon, complaining
prevent the ravaging of Western farm and
try but also of the Federal Power Com-
These officials are particularly angered
about the "scurrilous" letter, and asking
grazing lands. But it asserts that Western
mission, The Federal Energy Administration
low-sulphur coal will not be available in
and the White House Office of Manage-
by what they regard as misleading state.
that you fully investigate both the official
ments in some A.E.P. ads. For example:
and clandestine activities of Mr. Peterson
anything like the quantities needed until
ment and Budget.
But the E.P.A. responds that intermittent
"Applied to a 12,000 megawatt, coal-fired
in the conduct of his office."
the mid-nineteen-eightles.
In any event, the $3.7-million ad cam-
Second, as a long-range solution, Mr. Cook
control is acceptable as an Interim device,
system, limestone scrubbers would in only
five years produce enough oozy gook
paign represents small change for A.E.P.,
would remove the gas by a "front-end"
but not as a permanent control measure. It
to cover, for instance, 10 square miles of
which had operating revenues of $967-mll-
process-such as coal liquefaction or gasi-
argues that neither low-sulphur coal nor an
fication-leaving a clean fuel to be burnt.
alternate source of power may be available
Washington, D. C., five feet deep." (A later
and profits of $183-million in 1973. Its
ad, citing an Interior Department figure on
margin was 18.9 per cent, much above
Again, the E.P.A. agrees, but Mr. Quarles
during a pollution alert.
More important, the agency contends. the
sludge produced, raised the depth to 10 feet.)
idustry average. Revenues for 1974 are
notes that A.E.P. and Allegheny Power Sys-
Agency officials point out that 12,000
cted to reach $1.2-billion although
tem, Inc., are each contributing only $1-mil-
tall stacks simply spew out sulphur dioxide
to fall at a distance as acid rain or as mi-
megawatts is almost as large as the entire
earnings may be down somewhat because
lion over two years to a $13-million research
nute sulphate particles. And it takes the po-
seven-state A.E.P. system and that sludge
S
of high interest payments.
project on liquefaction, with the govern-
tential health hazards of those two very
would be dispersed among many, relatively
The company's 20 power plants have a
ment putting up the rest.
Mr. Cook's third strategy, is the "Inter-
seriously indeed.
small, remote sites and at a depth much
generating capacity of more than 15,000
more than five or 10 feet.
megawatts (exceeded only by the Tennes-
In the light of industry experience with
see Valley Authority system) and it expects
scrubbers so far, the E.P.A. draws two
to expand to 26,000 megawatts by 1982.
conclusions.
Some years ago It decided to rely on coal
How Scrubbers Work
The first is that, because of the amount
and not to go for nuclear power in a big
of shudge, the usual lime and limestone
way. Its only nuclear plant will not start up
processes are not well adapted to power
until next month. It also has one oil-fired
plants in, or near big cities. If such plants
and two hydroelectric plants, all small.
The controversial scrubber of gases in a
forced up the stack by large induction fans.
use high-sulphur coal, they will probably
In 1973, the A.E.P. system consumed 31
coal-fired operation-to vastly over-simpilfv
The sludge containing the calcium sul-
have to Install a system that produces
million tons of coal-nearly one-tenth of
-Is a large metal container fitted with
phate and calclum sulphite-truly, as scrub-
usable products such as sulphur or sulphuric
the coal used by the nation's electric utili-
nozzles. and baffles.
ber critics charge, "an bozy gook". - is
acid, rather than sludge. (Boston Edison has
ID
ties and about one-fifteenth of all the coal
From a plant's boller; frue gas containing
pumped from the settling tanks to small
a 150 mcgawatt plan using a magneskith
consumed in the whole country. Its own
tokie. selphut. dioxide is ptimped into this
ponds where it is stabilized by the addition
oxide scrubber producing sulphuric acid
mines supply about one-fifth of its coal and
container and there churned with a chemical
of flyash and lime / nd partially dried. Final-
and the Philadelphia Electric Company is
by 1981 are expected to supply cent.
compound-mest commonly a sturry of lime
ly, It Is trucked or sent by plpe to a disposal
planning to Invest $68-million in magnesium
or Ilmestone-that reacts with the dioxide
site to harden.
oxide scrubbers.)
to produce calcium sulphate and calcium sul-
The principal companies to have designed
The second conclusion is that a large
The average sulphur content in what
A.E.P. hurns is 2.5 per cent, but about one-
phite. These solids can be drawn with the
scrubber systems for major plants, of 100
number of coal-fired plants-from 65 to 100
third is only 1 per cent or less. The rest,
water Into large tanks where they settle out.
megawatts or larger, include Combustion
-will not be able to comply with its stand:
Most of the water is then pumped back into
Engineering. Inc.; the Babcock & Wilcox
particularly that burned by Ohio Power, the
ards by 1977 by installing scrubbers. The
the scrubber.
Company; the Chemical Construction Cor-
time is too short for design, manufacture
biggest company in the system, is high
After removal of the sulphur dioxide, the
poration, a subsidiary of the General Tire
and Installation. Therefore, these. plants
sulphur.
remaining flue gas-mostly water vapor and
and Rubber Company; the Peabody Galion
must be given variances, or the law must
There Is no dispute between Mr. Cook
and the E.P.A. over the availability of tech-
non-toxic carbon dioxide - is reheated and
Corporation, and Research-Cottrell, Inc.
be changed to extend the compliance date,
probably to the mid-nineteen-eighties.
nology to deal with flyash, also called
Where does A.F.P. fit into these conclu-
particulates, which give the plume from an
sions?. Mr. Cook boasts that his company
unregulated power plant its grey-black
has always been a "pioneering" utility, and
color.
cites its development of very high temper-
Electrostatic precipitators, which act like
ature bollers, the nation's largest generating
a magnet, were developed in the nineteen-
units high voltage transmission and ad-
thirties and have been improved to the
vanced circuit breakers and so on.
point where nearly all flyash can be col-
When Mr. Dowd, the general counset;
lected.
stressed this point at E.P.A. hearings a
"We were environtentalists long before
year ago, however, an *agency official ob-
it was popular," says one A.E.P. ad, adding
served that "A.E.P. is willing to take the
that the company tested its first precipi-
risk [of investing larger sums)when the
tator in 1941. However, it did not install
technology in question happens to be gen-
precipitators in all its plants, and did not
erating technology but is unwilling to take
keep abreast of the developing technology.
any risk when it comes to pollution control,
result, in order to meet the standards
at least sulphur pollution control."
the Clean Air Act by 1977, A.E.P. is
To which Mr. Cook replies that A.E.P.
ing nearly $500-million to "backfit"
has invested over $1-billon in environ-
Billers, 11 plants with new precipitators.
mental controls-precipitators. tall stacks
Mr. Cook's complaint is that the cost of
and monitoring, huge towers to cool and
the
the new equipment is excessive for the small
recirculate water to prevent thermal pollu-
the
additional control.
tion of rivers, reclamation' and tree-planting
ether
"We backfitted [one] plant," he said, "to
of a company-owned strip mine in Ohio,
achieve flyash control of 98.5 per cent, and
ative
and contracts for low-sulphur coal.
then when West Virginia issued its imple-
out-
But he stands firm against spending even
mentation plan in January, 1972, it was
While
one dollar for scrubber technology.
twice as stringent as the Federal require-
The E.P.A.'s John Quarles thinks this
ment, and we had to rebackfit to achieve
attitude irresponsible. He does not see why
per
99.7 per cent control. That additional 1.2
and
the giant A.E.P. with a billion dollars a year
per cent cost $56-million."
revenue and an 18.9 per cent profit margin
essful
Sulphur Dioxide is another matter. Here
should not invest in this sort of sulphur
anty.
Mr. Cook disagrees vehemently with the
control when, for example, the Louisville
arket.
E.P.A. not only on how to control emissions
Gas and Electric Company, with revenues
of this colorless, toxic gas but also on its
of $160-million and a 12.7 per cent margin,
hazards to public health.
is investing $50-million.
Coal-fired power plants are also responsi-
But Mr. Cook says "we are not going to
ble for about 56 per cent of the 30 million
A lime scrubbing unit, center at left, In use at the Louisville Gas and Electric Co.
be the sacrificial goat on scrubbers."
tons of sulphur dioxide emitted into the
Three Plants-Three Experiences
WASHINGTON In one
six boilers, representing 220
to 60 per cent of the gas has
more than 99 per cent of the
Louisville Gas and Electric
scrubbers use limestone,
advertisement, the American
megawatts, have been
been removed. Flyash remov-
flyash.
is planning to add scrubbers
quarried a mile away, the
The scrubbing agent in the
to four other units. Annual
plant burns 2 million tons of
Electric Power Company
hooked into & retroactively
al is over 97 per cent.
fitted, four module lime
stated that stack gas scrub-
Mr. Pernick is confident
slurry 13 carbide lime, a
operating cost of the five will
coal a year and uses 500,000
scrubbing system.
be $14-million, costing con-
tons of limestone.
that if dioxide -scrubbers
throwaway product from an
bers to remove sulphur oxide
The first la a dual unit.
were added to the three
acetylene plant nearby. The
sumers about 15 per cent in
There is only one boiler;
from power plant emissions
with one scrubber removing
single flyash units, the plant,
plant burns 4 per cent sul-
rate increases, it is estimated.
the stack is 700 feet. Of the
are "unreliable and impracti-
which burns coal containing
phur coal.
The five units will produce
90 tons of flyash produced
flyash, and the other, sulphur
cal."
dioxide. The other three are
2 per cent sulphur, would be
The scrubber unit was
900,000 tons of sludge a year.
every hour, two-thirds is re-
In a press release two
chiefly for flyash removal,
in compliance with the state's
planned by Robert P. Van
and Mr. Van Ness thinks that
moved from the bottom of
months ago, the Environmen-
with one of them on standby.
emission limitations.
Ness, manager of the compa-
eventually this should be
the boiler and the rest, along
tal Protection Agency said:
Disposal of sludge-over
ny's environmental affairs
piped into worked-out mines
with 40 tons of sulphur diox-
Steve L. Pernick in charge
"The experience of electric
of Duquesne's environmental
500,000 tons a year If all
and a chemical engineer. It
or used for fill in strip-mined
ide an hour, goes to seven
program, has been plagued
boiler were hooked to dual
went Into operation April,
areas.
scrubber modules.
utilities 50 far with 'scrub-
bers' in actual operation
with problems since the dual
scrubbers-is a problem be-
1973, and Mr. Van Ness says
De Cygne, located In the
Clifford P. McDaniel, the
shows they can be used con-
scrubber went Into operation
cause the plant is on the
that 90 per cent of the gas is
Kansas prairie 50 miles from
engineer In charge of the
tinuously, rehably and effec-
last March.
outskirts of the city.
now being removed.
Kansas City, Mo., began
scrubbers, has had rought:
There has been much scal-
Completed Installation at
He attributes the system's
operating June I. 1973. It's
problems with scaling and
tively."
mong the plants where
ing and plugging by calcium
Phillips, and another at the
success to the fact that, by
big. with total capacity of
plugging.
or limestone scrubbers
sulphate and calcium sul-
company's Eirama plant,
carefully controlling the
820 megawatts.
Each night of the week, In
been installed are: The
phite solids produced by the
would mean a capital cost of
chemical reaction, he winds
However, it is producing
rotation, one module is shut
ips Station of the Du-
reaction of sulphur dioxide
$110-million. Annual operat-
up with calcium bisulphite, a
only 650 niegawatts because
down for cleaning-an oper-
quesne Light Company of
and the lime. Two or three
Ing costs, including sludge
soluble salt, meaning no scal-
of a design miscalculation
ation that takes two or three
Pittsburgh, the Paddy's Run
times a month it has been
disposal, would be $30-mil-
ing or plugging problems.
that has necessitated "steal-
men ten hours and loses 90
Station of the Louisville Gas
down for a day or two at a
lion. This might mean a 25
From April through De-
ing" hot air from the boiler
to 110 megawatts of output.
and Electric Company and
time.
per cent increase in consum-
cember last year. when the
to help push flue gases up
Nevertheless, Mr. McDaniel
PT bills, Mr. Pernick esti-
botter was operating tull
the stack after passing
says, at present 98.4 per cent
the La Cygne Station In Kan-
As for effloiency when
sas, jointly owned by the
operating. the dual unit has
mated
time: availability of the
through the scrubbers. The
of flyash and 69 to 83 per
Kansas City Power and Light
been removing 90 per cent of
Paddy's Run is the E.P.A.'s
scrubber was 70 per cent,
scrubbers cost $42-million, or
cent of sulphur dioxide are
Company and the Kansas
the sulphur dioxide passing
showpiece. Its capacity is 330
and from August through De-
$51 a kilowatt.
being removed. Availability
Gas and Electric Company.
through It-which is only 20
megawatts. but one
cember, it was 98 per cent.
The plant burns coal, strip-
of the system has increased
117
mined about three miles dis-
from 37 per cent last
range
day,
WORTH
Secre
Times
Roge
he new militance at the
attac
ant level is having a pro-
tion"
ffect the structure of
fire
ons
ng a waning of
United Press International
"It
fluel
the Italian lead-
In Quanloi, South Vietnam, Cobra gunships are refueled for action against ground forces
plex,
has become far more dy-
SAM
Unions are all submerg-
milit
r ideological differences
unification effort that
First Signs of a Backlash
U.S. SENDS LON NOL
craft
ave important political
ences.
Emerge in Ecology Drive
MERCENARY UNITS
Ot
ther
ts from New York Times
the
ondents show that in
fense
every country of West-
By WILLIAM K. STEVENS
cludi
rope workers share a
Signs of a backlash against
These conclusions emerge
Force of 2,000 Well-Armed
the crusade for a cleaner en-
from interviews with industrial-
enen
1 feeling of allenation.
ists, businessmen, conserva-
Cambodians Is Flown In
W
vironment and restoration of
result, power is being
the ecological balance are be-
tionists, consumers, public of-
sour
y the shop stewards and
From South Vietnam
York
ginning to appear.
ficials and scholars in a num-
ocal committees.
that
And consumers, who might
ber of cities.
if the most potent labor
help to lessen pollution by
The potential backlash so far
supp
Dispatch of The Times. London
in Britain is the unoffi-
buying items in returnable
is muted and is generally ex-
gets
PNOMPENH, Cambodia, May
nt shop stewards' or-
containers and by using non-
pressed gingerly, in terms that
name
3-More than 2,000 well-armed
on operating across the
polluting soaps and detergents,
caution against "hysteria" and
near
Cambodians serving in Ameri-
S. "By the mid nineteen-
seem to be displaying attitudes
emotion, express fears that the
can-operated units in South
day
ranging from total indifference
crusade will divert attention
that
Vietnam were flown into Pnom-
ed on Page 15, Column 1
to sporadic interest.
from more familiar problems of
larg
penh last night and Friday as
poverty and other social ills, or
halt
reinforcements for the Cambo-
indicate that someone's self-
of N
ked for Hospital Abortions
dian Army.
interest will be harmed by the
1968
Their arrival-in a fleet of
environmental crusade.
To
planes from Bienhoa, near
or
bortion in any
"When you get away from
the
needed, Mr. Gelfand said, to
Saigon-was kept secret, but
supported by city
the generalities discussed at
not
prevent out-of-city women from
today many of them could be
a woman would have
ber
overtaxing New York hospitals
Earth Day and down to the spe-
met near the temporary billets
that she had lived in
to take advantage of the state's
cifics," said Lloyd Tupling,
firm
given them at the sports sta-
for seven months.
relaxed law.
Sierra Club representative in
stag
dium in the center of the city.
neasure, introduced by
"Even today," he said, "many
Washington, "then you will run
These men are the Khmer
Con
nan Bertram R. Gel-
patients are being turned down
into what amounts to opposi-
Kampuchea Krom - lower, or
Bronx Democrat, will be
for lack of beds and physicians
tion. The backlash will develop
delta, Cambodians-some of
to committee at the
are being told to delay non-
once you start talking about
the two and a half mililon eth-
E
meeting tomorrow.
emergency operations as long
specifics."
nic Cambodians living in South
sources said the chances
as two or three months."
One example involves the
Vietnam. The Cambodian Gov-
sage were uncertain at
The Councilman added:
United States Steel Corpora-
ernment does not consider them
int.
"The staggering burden of
tion's plant in Duluth, Minn.,
to be foreign troops and Pre-
ocal law would take ef-
caring for the residents of this
which has been told to meet
mier Lon Nol asked President
y 1, the date that the
city grows worse every year. It
minimum air quality standards.
Nixon on April 20 for their use.
relaxed state abortion
is unfair to ask our people to
Corporation officials say the
S/
In answer to a question
omes effective.
subsidize a hospital system
plant will be forced to close if
May
about the men, a United States
eral Abortion Law
which may be devoted to mak-
the standards are enforced. At
wide
Embassy spokesman replied:
new abortion law will
ing New York City the nation's
stake are the jobs of 2,000
heav
"As far as we know these are
W York State the most
abortion capital."
workers.
Vieti
ethnic Cambodians who wish
one in the nation, leav-
The only exception his bill
The example is cited by
The
to fight for the Cambodian Gov-
a pregnant woman and
repo
tor the decision wheth-
Continued on Page 24, Column 4
Continued on Page 57, Column 3
Continued on Page 6, Column 4
mort
should have an abortion.
doze
Th
esent statute permits
is
a mother's life
British Hoopla Honors Staid Pilgrims
the
craft
ing
State Legislature has
oper:
By BERNARD WEINRAUB
smocks danced around a may-
drizzle fell, Mr. Saltonstall and
on the subject of abor-
one
d the debate is closed,"
Special to The New York Times
pole on the promenade facing
thousands of others gazed at
ber
fand said in a statement
PLYMOUTH, England May
the mist-covered bay - the
the fireworks and bonfires
Nort
yesterday by the Coun-
3-The voyage of the May-
city's fond gaze into the past
shimmering in this southwest
Un
rebuilt
THE NEW YORK TIMES, MONDAY, MAY 4. 1970
The Times
First Signs of Backlash Emerge
Supplementary Over-Counter
In Drive for Ecological Balance
The following is a supplementary list of over-the
stocks prepared by the National Association of S
Best Shot
Dealers. It consists of securities less widely held
Continued From Page 1, Col. 5
L. Torak, a Republican from
that, for other reasons. do not appear on the dail
ERT
TE
the-Counter list. The range shown prices
Luther P. Gerlach, University
suburban Montgomery County,
securities could have been sold (bid) en bought
since Muhammad All
of Minnesota anthropologist,
near Philadelphia, has told the
last Friday.
for that would have made
as one situation in which ten-
Pennsylvania Legislature he
Bid. Asked
Bld
Bld. Asked.
Since then, Ali has starred in a
ABC F
2
2½
Della Corp
,
2
sees no merit in a plea by
Isomet
1½
10½
Photo M
sions could develop as the
ASI Com
5
5½
DeyNuciear
1
1½
J K Ind
work on an autobiography and
United States Senator Gaylord
Ab & Fitch
9
10½
2½
2½
Planet (
Dextra Corp
136
1%
clean environment crusade is
Joyce estie
Acadia
11/2
2½
4
4½
Planet 0
Dade County jail for an old
Diamond Sh
Julie Res
Polypi S
Nelson for control of pollution,
Acousica As
1½
Com
101/2
111/2
pressed.
Acquston Sy
1½
Labs
Pundeso.
a license. He became a father,
11/2
Diapuise
3½
4½
1%
2
or in two student speakers' re-
Ad Pres
Digitek
K B Mark
PortCan
5 ½
6½
Professor Gerlach, who has
2½
2½
Power M
on the campus circuit, and a
Ad Mig
24
243/4
Sys
9
Disc Corp
10½
AdvMemS
KC Life
Preston
quests for birth control pro-
13½
14½
405
of N.Y.
420
in talk shows. He appeared in
studied the ecology movement
471/2
49
Prince (
Aeroflex
4½
5½
KentMonre
28
Doll Fund
29½
Agrotron
1%
2½
8.06
8.06
grams.
Kent Ind
Princeto
a "computer boxing match" in
11/2
for the last two years, said he
1%
AircraftMch
1 1/a
2½
Dolar Gen
14%
14½
Knick Toy
4
Printogs
3%
has expected opposition to
Finds Bellefs Challenged
Alden Care
4½
5½
Delas&Lom
8½
8½
Kratos
2½
2½
ProfitBy
Allegri T
1
1½
Dowz Elec
7½
8½
Prog Cor
Lad El Sys
11/4
2
the movement for about a
He said, in regard to the pro-
Alien RG
5½
6½
Drexel Dyn
1½
2½
Prog Ind
Lamb Com
3
4
Allied Aero
17/8
1%
Drico Ind
5
5½
Quatron
Lampert Ag
2½
3½
year.
posals, "Another unsuspecting
Allied Fd
111/4
12
Dubow Chm
1½
1½
Qualifas/
Lamston
AlliedM&S
9
101/2
Dublin Ens
3½
4
Quanta S
MH
20
21½
Grave Division Seen
and trusting state legislature
Allied Res
2
2½
Duncan
7½
8½
Landa Ind
11/8
13/2
RJ Com
was the victim of another snow
Am Agron
14½
15½
Dyna Ray
11/2
2½
LandsVrkCo
2%
3½
Racon "
"People felt ecology would
job by the leadership." Never
Am Auto TC
2
3
E. H. Rsch
"
14½
Lannel Co
2½
3½
Radition
Amer Cap
1%
1½
E.L.I. Ind
6½
7½
LeTournesu
Recotion
unite the country," he said. "It
before have the basic Christian-
Am Expid
62
62½
EME Ind
1½
RG
5
7
Rectived
Judaic beliefs been challenged
Am Foods
1 7/8
2½
Eagle Gen
1½
2½
Lee Wilson
Red Rup
will be more divisive than
Am Med All
3
3½
Eagle Inc
1½
2
Eng
2½
2½
Rentex S
as now with phony social re-
Am Rcwys
3 1/2
3%
Eanco Inc
1½
2
Leisure Dyn
Robis Co
black power, even more divis-
7
Roch Ins
form propesitions.'
Am Sc Eng
6
Eastco
Inc
9½
11
Am Ser
2½
2%
ive than the war in Vietnam.
Saf Eq
5½
1½
Levin Townsend
Rudd Me
2
Glenn Kimble, director of air
Americar
4½
East Ind
12½
13%
Comp.
11/4
2
SYS Asso
Anchr Alys
2½
2½
The conflicts in ecology are
and water resources at the huge
5½
6½
Edison E,
12½
13½
Lexington
St.JohnD
Anterenni
Inst
21/a
2½
Ap Nat Life
3
latent. Ecology demands more
3½
Edwards
Sal & Sal
Union Camp papermill in Savan-
Lipe Rollwy
8
App Logic
6½
7½
Ind
8
81/4
8½
St. Lou S
Lisa Int
fundamental changes than any
nah, among Georgia's largest
Arch Mrbi
3
3½
Elco Elect
1½
33/4
4½
Samson
2%
Lord
All App
124
2½
Einson Free
Sav Suga
other revolution."
single sources of pollution, is
Hardwick
9
10
Automer
4½
5
& Det
Savant In
3½
4
one of several industrialists in
Automtique
2½
3½
Eldon Ind
"
Lovie Prod
13
2½
3½
Saxton P
The prospect of change has
Lumey
Autimos
1½
1½
Elctr Mch
4
4½
8½
9½
Schaefer
that state who have strenuously
Lumidor Ind
BMA Asso
3½
Elec Con
2½
2½
3
Shaev Er
already stirred some dissent, in
3
3½
Lunn Lam
62
2%
3½
Schnr Ap
complained about "hysteria"
Ball Airco
61
Elec Tab
4
various forms. For example,
4½
Balt Bus F
15
16
Equity Leasing
Madison Ind
3½
4½
Schwart
the Daughters of the American
over ecology.
Basic Fd
5½
5½
Corp
3½
4½
Magic Mark
1½
1½
Scien Ch.
Bel Fuse
2
3
Exec Sec
15
20
Magma Pow
1%
Scien Co,
1½
Revolution has approved a res-
He used the whooping crane
Manati.Sug
3 1/4
4½
Scottax (
BerkshGr
5.66 6.19
Expin Co
14
141/4
olution saying that the pollu-
Bio Sc R
2
3
Marva Ind
1
Semicon
as an example.
Fact Sy
2½
3
1½
Borne Ch
1
Marcon C
9½
Seneca 0
116
"People get extremely emo-
Fearn Inf.
tion problem "is being distort-
11%
8½
12½
101/4
Boro EI
7½
Mkt Facts
26
Sensomal
27
37/2
Fed Pet
4½
5
2½
Markite
Serv Mas
ed and exaggerated by emo-
tional about losing a species,"
Broadcastn
2½
Fed Screw
20
22
Brogan Asso 2½
Corp
2½
3
Servicect
tional declarations and by in-
Mr. Kimble said in a recent
Brun Sens
2
2½
Ferry C&S
7½
8%
Marshall
Siera Rx
newspaper interview. "But an-
Bun&Burger
1½
2
FirstRepAm
13/4
2
Elec
2½
2½
Sigma C1.
tensive propaganda."
Burnham
F
9.09
9.09
Fla Tile
14 1/2
151/4
Massengill
Ind
Camera Press-Pix
imals have been dying out every
Buxton's
3½
4½
Foam USA
2½
2%
SE
22
23
SITO
Several newspapers around
CTP
1½
1½
Food Res
6½
63/4
Master Craft
2
the country noted that Earth
year clear back to the dino-
2½
Simplex
Cassius Clay
Cam No
10
11½
Forbes
3½
4½
Masters Inc
9
10
Snig & Sr.
saurs, and in most cases man
Four Star
2
Math Appl
2½
3%
Sora Prin
Day, dedicated to fighting pollu-
Camp AH
7
a
2½
had nothing to do with it. For
Cand Fel
4
5
Fownes Br
Maust C&C
11/a
So Diver
6½
7½
1½
Ali
and lawyer, Robert
tion, fell on Lenin's birthday.
CarrolsDay
8
81%
Frigitrncs
21
22
Mach Bld
1½
2
Spec Stuc
Ali is free on bail
One, The Richmond News-Lead-
that matter, it probably won't
Carter Gr
2
2½
Frouge
1½
2½
Media-Creat
3
3½
Spec Con
est
Std Mig
hurt mankind a whole hell of
Carvel
6 1/2
7½
GBC Clsd
Mediatrics
2
2½
viction of refusing to submit
er, said, "The date was not
Casselle Ct
8
82/2
Cr TV
12
Medicald EI
Stan Res
11
a lot in the long run if the
Cert Creat
2½
3½
Gal Frl
1
1½
& Phar
5
5%
Staninc
ns of his bail is that he must
selected by chance. Here we
have a classic example of how
whooping crane doesn't quite
Chalco Eng
3
3½
G.L.Enter
3%
3½
Medici Fd
7.30 7.30
Stange Co.
Sterscp
Char-Carson
2
27
nited States. Judge Wisdom's
Galaxy Fd
5.86
6.40
Merc Elec
136
1%
Suava Sh
make it.
Chatam
1%
1½
the Communists pervert ideal-
Galaxy Oil
2½
3½
Met Pro W
17
18
Summit
extend bail so that Ali may
Chem Polls
7½
9
Gelliss (5)
Michaels
J
8½
9½
ism and worthwhile causes to
Blames the Consumer
Chemiree
11/4
13's
Super' Cr
Co
8
9
Micro Unid
3%
4Va
9
Swift Ind
July.
Class St Ser
I
Gen. Comp.
Mid All Ut
6
7
their own purpose."
Milton Friedman, the Univer-
1014
Swiss Ch.,
Clay Mark
17½
9½
Corp
8½
2½
4½
Minn NG
15
153/4
Synchone
Record
Clo Ware
GenCmpSy
10
11
Mir Mart
6½
7
Clinton Eng
1 Ve
1%
Syracuse
Wants Larger Population
sity of Chicago economist, is
Mo Fu Tr
136
1%
Coast Dyn
3½
4½
Gen East
10½
18 1/2
Syst Asso
not as good as his record In
one of several observers who
Coast Photo
3½
Mirl Mart
Floyd Oles, acting city man-
2½
3½
Gen Laser
4½
63/4
73/4
Colgate Mgt
2½
2½
Gen House
10
11
Mo PRRB
7.25
8.00
Taca Intl
convicted in United States
have said they believe the ecol-
Col Prop
1½
Gen Microw
13/4
2½
Mo-Res-Lab
3½
4
Tad's Ent.
ager of Tacoma, Wash., who is
2½
Tax Cp An
Gen Nur Hm
1½
2½
Mod Div
2
2%
June of 1967. He was sen-
a conservative, also noted the
ogy crusade may be a fad, and
Colman A
5½
6½
G Tel Cal
11½
12½
Mr. Swiss
3½
43/4
TechDent.
nment and a fine of $10,000.
he decries what he believes to
Colo Inst
7
7½
coincidence with Lenin's birth-
Col Cable
83/4
101/4
Geon Ind
9
9½
Monrch Tile
176
1%
Technogri
Georgia
Monica SC
3½
3½
Toeg Rest
urt of Appeals affirmed the
day.
be the tendency of some cru-
Col Tech
11/4
2½
Com Share
5½
6½
8d Fib
4
4½
Mmouth EI
11/2
1%
Termni E-
saders to cast industrial pol-
Glbson C.R.
53/4
6½
Monroe Co
3½
3%
Tex Tenni
He further told the Tacoma
Comp'nts
6
6%
Compucolor
4½
4½
Girard Ind
3½
3%
Motor Colls
5
luters as "evil devils who are
5½
Textone "
ase took a turn. The United
Mall Kiwanis Club recently that
Goddard Ind
Motor Parts
3½
4½
Thiel Inc
Comp Age
1%
2½
1%
2
deliberately polluting the air."
Comput Clr
2%
376
Gold Pre
3½
4%
Motor Travi
1½
116
Thomas II
never reviewing the merits
pulp-mill and smelter pollution
The real source of pollution, he
6½
6½
Goldsmith
5
6
Moxie Co
3½
4½
Titan Well
Comp Data
Gondas Crp
5½
6
Multi Media
1
ase back to the District Court
13/4
Tizon Chn
in the city "smell like jobs" and
contends, is mostly the con-
Comp Ent
1½
13/4
Gr Yellow
13/4
2
Music Fair
17/a
2½
Toledo MI
e gathered by illegal wiretaps
that he regretted Tacoma resi-
Comp Env
6½
7½
Gulf Res
6
7
My Toy
6
7
Trans-A E
sumer.
Comp Int
1½
2
Trans-Son
dents no longer boasted about
HTV Syst
3
3½
Naes Thom
2167 2189
Comp Met
1½
1%
TrnsidynG
Around the country, there is
Hall (Frank B.)
Nasco Ind
7½
B½
Trans Pool
ly, decided that the wiretaps
smokestacks going up in the
Com Net
S
6
Nall Beryl
101/2
little evidence that concern over
& Co.
143/4
15½
12½
Travel Ma.
industrial area. He said he
CompOpics
7
8
Harv Ind
intenced Ali. There also had
3½
4½
Nat Cleve
136
17/2
Triang Pa
pollution has so far changed the
Comp Stat
1%
2½
Hawali Pac 16
16%
Natl Spin
7½
836
Tronch Re
at Judge Joe Ingraham might
would be happy if the United
Comp Stud
5
6
Haydn Pub
4½
5½
Nat Tel
2½
3½
Ultrascnce
States had a larger population,
habits of many consumers. Al-
Comtel
134
2½
Hem Hotels
Nationwide
1½
1 7/a
Ultrasones
Four of the five taped con-
though some motorists are re-
Connsuranc
2%
376
Corp
3½
434
Nwide Auto
11/4
2½
UnicareSer
"because we are only a small
Cons An
1½
1½
Henry's Dr
2½
2½
Nease Ch
3½
4
turned over to Ali's lawyer
portedly buying lead-free gas-
U.S. Comp
minority on this globe."
Cons.Mut.
10.54
10.54
Herbert AM
11/4
1½
Neotec
9
10
U.S. Crown
ording to the judge, had been
oline, and although here and
Consol Prod
6
0%
Hermitite
Netgo Ltd
1½
276
US Lumber
Mayor Carl B. Stokes of
Cons&Tech
11
14
Corp
6½
7½
Network EI
2½
2½
there appear pockets of enthu-
Universi In
: it publicly would endanger
ConsWater
19½
21
Hrld
Fd
101.15
103.19
Nevada S&L
4½
43/4
Upson
Cleveland, a Negro, expressed
siasm for returnable containers
Cont Semi
HIII Bros
2½
N Life
2
3½
2½
Con
2½
3
Hdges (Wm) 6½
Nisarc Com
3
Vacu Dry
a different kind of concern that
and biodegradable detergents,
7
2½
VacoumCo
pealed in New Orleans. The
Control Ind
3
3½
Hins Res
8½
9
Nissen Co
9
10
Vngrd Date
seems to be widespread among
most buying habits appear to be
House of
Nileld Prc
2%
Cooky's Steak
33/4
VentureSFu
at all the wiretap conversa-
black leaders.
untouched.
Pub
2½
2½
Westmore
1½
1 1/2
Ocean R
13/4
2½
Venus DD
Ali's lawyers, in which event
Cord's Crp
26
28
Hydro Tech
1
11/4
Odl Fort
6½
7½
Vesco Corp
"I am fearful that the priori-
Supermarkets in Boston say
Corn N
11½
12½
ICP Inc
9½ 11
Omni-Spec
7½
8½
VibrainMnt
et Court; or that the wiretap
ties on air and water pollution
Cosmos
1½
ILC Ind
4
4½
Omnitec
2
2½
Viking Gen
their surveys show no major
Image Svs
13½
On Guard
3
4
terial import on Ali's convic-
CreativeCap
5½
7½
14½
Viking Ind
may be at the expense of what
Crow Milk
5½
Imperial
Oper Match
fluctuations in consumer hab-
6½
1½
2½
Vista Ind
ill be a new trial, or it may
Ind
7
the priorities of the country
its, and they have therefore
Curtis Elect
23
71,5
Orien Re
3½
4½
2½
Vitabath
Ind Fin Ag
1½
2½
Osles Ors
2½
3½
coisi
which event this
Cut & Curl
7½
8½
Wasko Golo
ought to be: proper housing,
Index Fd. of
Osrow Prd
2½
not taken the initiative in stock-
2½
WackEd&C
Cybern Ed
1½
2
Boston
11.89
12.99
2½
Oseas Shidg
7½
7½
Weingarin
eme
adequate food and clothing."
ing their stores with nonpollut-
Dayos Inc
1 7/a
Instrument $ 136 1%
PRF Corp
2½
27/g
WestmCoat
DFI Com
he said. There is "glamor" in
134
2½
ing products and containers.
Int Rsrcs
42
44
Pack Elec
7
8½
West Llins
ic
Data Drn
1½
2
Intelectron
5½
6½
Pack Prod
5
5½
WTravell if:
ecology, and it "makes people
Some consumers say they
Date Met
2½
3
IntLife Ins
10
11
Pan A Drn
9½
101/4
WhitehallC
Ali lost a number of smaller
in the suburbs of the country
Dataram
a
9
would buy nonpolluting deter-
Interdata
8
8½
ParagonNall
5
6
Wynn Ind
Davilstind
11/2
11/2
Int Grth Fd
2.58
3.91
Penn Va
61
65
Xiox
empt to force the New York
feel involved," he went on.
gents if they could only be
Dear Des
324
1½
int Res Sev
1½
Perry Ch
3½
4½
YankeePist
license him. In his decision
Del Elec
176
1%
Inv Counsel
clearly informed about them.
11/2
1%
Pett Res
1%
2
Yard Man
State Representative Joseph
Delansir
1
1½
Irving PI
2½
3%
Phillips P
3%
4%
Zemco Ind
Marvin E. Frankel stated
II within the bounds of ra-
at the conviction and five