newsroom

TODAY Friday 10 October 1997 Each weekday. Conn Nugent on what's new in the world, on the site.

 

TODAY IN THE WORLD: Extra! Clinton Waffles

Bill McKibben had it right. He reported here the day after President Clinton's Climatefest at Georgetown ("My Day in Washington") that the Administration was embracing the science of global warming at the same time as it was lowering expectations about remedial steps.

This distance between Administration statements on the seriousness of the problem and Administration willingness to do anything about it, as evidenced in some policy option papers that were floated on Wednesday, is what is driving enviro leaders to fume in public.

John Cushman's article in this morning's New York Times quotes a "global warming expert who is close to the Administration" (Al Gore? Todd Stern?) as saying that "there are three main options on the table: one to stabilize emissions at 1990 levels by 2010, one to do so by 2015 or 2020, and one to gradually reduce the growth rate of emissions and to freeze them some day."

There also appears to be some kind of escape clause "that would limit the amount of money American companies would have to spend to meet any emission targets."

Compare these options with the European proposal (15% reductions in 1990 levels by 2010) or the Japanese proposal (5% reductions by 2012, but special clauses for countries like US and Japan to bring their reduction levels down to about 3%). European enviros went ballistic on Monday ("Japan The Genial Host") and yesterday it was the Americans' turn. Phil Clapp of the Environmental Information Center, usually not quick to criticize the Administration, told Cushman that a climate cave-in would "create severe credibility problems for [Clinton and Gore] on almost any environmental issue." Carl Pope of the Sierra Club said: "It's clear the President's men have blinked. It remains to be seen if the President will blink."

Carl is right, I think, in calling attention to the wiggle room that Bill Clinton has left for himself. Readers will recall the brouhaha within the Administration over the new Clean Air Act standards ("Bleeping Joan of Arc"), when the President favored the hard line of Carol Browner more than the accommodationist views of Katie McGinty and the tough people at Treasury, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Council of Economic Advisers. The President won green hearts because he appeared to be making a personal stand for environmental protection. This time, though, the tough guys are very tough indeed -- Gene Sperling and Lawrence Summers have little love for enviros -- and there's no Carol Browner taking her case to the media. Most of all, reducing greenhouse gas emissions doesn't have the easy public health connection that Clean Air regulations do.

Still, watch for the President to sidle greenwards. But not too much. The Japanese proposal was clearly made in cahoots with the US. My bet is that Bill Clinton will embrace something very close to it in the runup to Kyoto.

 

TODAY ON THE SITE:

Hibernicus, our resident druidic curmudgeon, casts a cold eye on Chesapeake Bay. The recent fishkills there tell a story of chicken farms and pampered lawns, he says. And until the Clean Water Act deals with what's called "nonpoint pollution," there's scant hope of lasting improvement. As always, inside-the-Beltway connections and outside-the-Beltway wisdom from our Capitol Hill Spy.

 

Recent "Today" columns:

10/09: Can Therapy Help the Songbirds?
10/08: Girls and Puberty
10/07: Japan The Genial Host
10/06: You Don't Need A Weatherman...
10/03: Cochise County, Arizona
10/02: The Copper Queen
10/01: Pesticides in California
9/30: Climate Policy: No Pain, No Gain
9/29: Climate Policy: No Pain, Much Gain
9/26: Darwin and Bug Spray
9/25: The Cooling of Los Angeles

To access more "Today" columns, click "Archives" below.