CLIMATE WATCH BRIEF AN INFORMATION UPDATE FROM THE GLOBAL CLIMATE COALITION September 1997 Volume 5, Issue 3 "Most modelers now agree that the climate models will not be able to link greenhouse warming unambiguously to human actions for a decade or more." --Science magazine article by Richard A. Kerr, May 16, 1997 New Economic Studies to Show Cost of Climate Treaty: American Jobs At Risk Two new economic studies to be released in September are expected to show that reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the United States will come with a hefty price tag and be paid for by American families. The studies, details of which were not available at press time (but stay tuned for a special edition of Climate Watch in October), were conducted independently by organized labor and the Global Climate Coalition. The studies are said to predict significant losses of American jobs if climate proposals currently under negotiation by the United Nations are adopted. These proposals call for drastic reductions in energy use by the United States, but do not require similar reductions by developing countries such as India, China and Mexico. The Times They Are A Changin': Scary Headlines of Past Not Justified; Rush to Judgment by World Panel on Climate Change Undercut by Second Look at Computer Models As negotiators look ahead to a final round of climate negotiations in October in advance of a expected climate agreement in December, it's worth taking a look back at how media coverage of the issue has changed. At first, headline writers bought it hook, line and sinker. Global Warming No Longer in Doubt, said one. Experts Agree Humans Have Discernible' Effect on Climate, echoed another. A chorus of certainty. No more doubts. That was only a year and a half ago. Now, as the U.S. and other nations consider a climate change treaty that would have a devastating impact on world economies, there is major disagreement about the basis for any action. The report's foundation (that touched off the headlines) is crumbling. Here's a quick look at the details. ,7 Things Not Always As They Appear: UN Report, Ignored If's, And's and But's Inspiring the media excitement in 1995 was the official summary statement of the UN sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change pcq report. It said the half-degree rise in global temperatures since the 19th Century may bear a "fingerprint" of human activity. Headlines shrieked. Global policy makers were emboldened. Clinton-Gore Administration negotiators pushed on, despite cries for caution from U.S. industry, labor and consumers on the harm that will come to America if binding - and competitively unfair - global climate rules are put in place. SCIENCE magazine cools off the global warming media hype, shows the uncertainties that were not clear in the IPCC report: PLEASE TURN CLIMATE WATCH el/RIEF ...IFCC scientists now say that neither the public nor many scientists appreciate how many ifs, and's and but's peppered the report. "It's unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the [IPCC] chapter" on the detection of greenhouse warming, says climate modeler Benjamin Santer of LawV rence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, the lead author of the chapter. "I think the caveats are there. We say quite clearly that a few scientists would say the attribution issue was a done deal..." (From SCIENCE, Vol. 276, May 16, 1997. www.sciencemag.org) Congress Got a Bum Steer, Too, Science Reveals This gets complicated. This business of the "fingerprint" — which has been used to justify harsh action against the U.S. economy — was seen by the computer modelers when they used data on the effect of pollutant hazes or aerosols on climate. Modelers assumed that soil, dust, particles from burned fuel, ash, soot, agricultural burning — all reflecting sunlight — both shade and cool the earth surface beneath them. But wait a minute. Says SCIENCE: his GISS colleagues pointed out that recent ...[T]he assumptions about how hazes affect climate measurements suggest that aerosols don't just cool; may have taken a hit recently from Climatologist and they also warm the atmosphere by absorbing modular James Hansen of NASA's GISS [Goddard sunlight. The net effect of this reflection and Institute for Space Studies] -- the man who told absorption, Hansen estimates, would be small — too Congress in 1988 that he believed "with a high small to have much effect on temperature... degree of confidence" that greenhouse warming had arrived. In a recent paper, Hansen and (SCIENCE, Vol. 276, May 16, 1997) Hobble the U.S. Economy and Damage the Environment? Agreement on a climate change treaty could be advanced in December — at a UN organized meeting in Kyoto, Japan. Clinton-Gore negotiators have pledged their support for binding targets and a timetable for achieving them. GCC Chairman William F. O'Keefe has pointed out that agreement is moving toward placing limits on the use of energy in the U.S. to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, while exempting China, India and other major emitting countries from comparable restrictions. A DOE worst-case scenario says policy constraints on U.S. industries, which are not put on similar firms in other, less developed countries, would mean severe adverse environmental effects. Industries move to countries with fewer environmental safeguards resulting in a net increase in emissions. Energy use rules would also tilt in favor of emerging economies -and these countries become the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. What Do 2,000 Economists Actually Mean? Without any economic analyses to support its case for climate action, the Clinton Administration is relying more and more on a petition signed by more than 2,000 economists apparently endorsing a gettough, rush-ahead economic policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But in a panel discussion sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, two of the petition's sponsors explained a somewhat different view. "My personal view," said Yale economist William Nordhaus, "is that if you had anything that looked like a sensible policy, it wouldprobably not have reductions in global emissions over the next ten. or twenty. or thirty years." Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson told Congress that "stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels is not something that can be justified on economic grounds... When we think about setting the target, the Rio agreement is the wrong startingpoint." CLIMATE WATCH BRIEF is published monthly by the Global Climate Coalition, an organization of business trade associations and private companies established to coordinate business participation in the scientific and policy debate on global climate change. Permission to quote or reprint is not necessary, although attribution is appreciated. Any questions? Call Tom Calcagni in the GCC Press Office (202) 974-5036. GLOBAL CLIMATE COALITION • 1275 K St. NW • Suite 890 • Washington, DC 20005 • Press Office (202) 628-3622