Executive Summary
This proposal prepared for the U.S. government on the issue of climate change recaps current U.S. policy, outlines the reasons why the U.S. has not signed the Kyoto Protocol and explores recommendations for the administration to consider.
There is currently a diverse array of policies and initiatives dealing with environmental matters, including those related to climate change, that the U.S. has enacted. These include the
National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and many others.
These are domestic responses as opposed to international ones like the Kyoto Protocol, which was not ratified by the U.S. for a variety of reasons. Its exemption of major population and economic centers (India and China, most significantly) was seen as extremely damaging to the
U.S. economy. President Bush also believed it to be an ineffective, unscientific and arbitrary plan made by politicians rather than scientists.
As consultants, we recommend that President Obama push for ratification of Kyoto in the
Senate for a variety reasons. A strong U.S. commitment would help to combat global climate change. Politically, it would reinforce President Obama’s promises of change and show a commitment to achieving that end. Although some U.S. critics say ratifying Kyoto would harm the economy, there are numerous studies that disprove this proposition. Additionally, diplomatic efforts directed at engaging developing nations and securing their commitment to curb greenhouse gas emissions could help alleviate concerns that these nations will not be bound by any commitment.
Current U.S. Policy
2

The following is a list of the Bush administration’s environmental initiatives and policies.
The content of these initiatives are controversial, while the titles are arguably misleading.
Current key governing acts are highlighted below.
Clear Skies Initiative
Clean Air Interstate Rule
Clean Air Mercury Rule
Clear Air non-road Diesel Rule
Healthy Forests Initiative
President’s Wetlands Initiative
2002 Farm Bill Conservation Title
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Intensity
Hydrogen Fuels Initiative
President’s Clean Coal Initiative o National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
ClimateVISION
US Ocean Action Plan
Cooperative Conservation
Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment
National Parks Initiative
Great Lakes Initiative
Water 2025
President’s Initiative Against Illegal
Logging
FutureGen: Pollution and Greenhouse gas free power

Requires federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision making processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions.
o Clean Air Act (CAA)
 Comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. o Clean Water Act (CWA)

Establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. o Endangered Species Act (ESA)
3


Provides a program for the conservation of threatened and endangered plants and animals and the habitats in which they are found. o Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
 Commonly known as “Superfund” - enacted by Congress on Dec. 11, 1980 - created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. o Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

Gives the EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. o o
Toxic Substances Control Act (ToSCA)

Enacted in 1976 - provides the EPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

Primary focus was to provide federal control of pesticide distribution, sale, and use.
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) o o Oil Pollution Act o Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) o Nuclear Waste Policy Act o Occupational Safety and Health Act o Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act o Energy Policy Act o Atomic Energy Act (AEA)
The Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but
4

note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut). The goal is to lower overall emissions from six greenhouse gases
- carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs - calculated as an average over the five-year period of 2008-12. Text of Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol is considered one of the most important international agreements associated with global climate change because while other agreements and frameworks merely encourage nations to stem their greenhouse gas emissions, the Kyoto Protocol voluntarily commits nations to meet certain standards between the years 2008-2012. Under the Protocol, the
U.S. would have been committing itself to reduce emissions of carbon-based gases by seven percent below 1990 levels. During the Clinton Administration, the U.S. became a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol although the administration never submitted the proposal to the Senate for ratification, likely because the Senate had already expressed its intent to vote down any treaty that did not include binding targets on developing nations. In 2001, President Bush stated his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol along with his desire to abandon such a plan for national consideration, and officially declared that the U.S. would follow a plan of its own domestic construction. This decision was met with strong international opposition.
The U.S.’s commitment to Kyoto is seen as absolutely vital to the success of the plan since it is the world’s largest per capita emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, emits almost a third of the world’s greenhouse gases, and has the largest economy in the world, making it well-equipped to tackle the problem. After President Bush declared that he would abandon the agreement, outrage spread throughout the world. The British labeled this decision as “almost unthinkable,” and an Australian legislator called it, “a low point in world environment history.” The United States’ decision not to participate in Kyoto basically ensured its failure.
Why Did President Bush refuse to participate in the Kyoto Protocol?
5

In a letter written to Senators Hagel, Helms, Craig, and Roberts on March 13, 2001,
President Bush stated his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol because “it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy.” The President thereafter often noted his disapproval that China, the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and also possessing one of the fastest growing economies in the world, would not be subject to any restrictions. The
Administration called the Protocol an unscientific and arbitrary plan created by politicians (rather than scientists) that would therefore be ineffective, and stated its intention to create a national plan of action to address issues related to climate change. In response, the Administration introduced the Clear Skies and Global Climate Change Initiatives in February 2002 that sought to cut emissions through market-based approaches. This includes offering incentives to businesses that voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions by certain levels. The President also stated that a strong economy, seemingly unrestrained by international agreements, would be the best way to ensure investment in clean technologies. The Clear Skies and Global Climate
Change Initiatives sought to reduce U.S. emissions even lower than would have been committed under the Kyoto Protocol, however, the U.S.’s unwillingness to participate in the international agreement was seen as a fatal blow to the treaty, and a major disgrace for the U.S. within the international community.
Recommendations
Our firm recommends that President Obama initiate efforts to ensure that the U.S. ratifies the Kyoto Protocol. The President should publicly emphasize the importance of omplying with the Protocol’s directives, and emphasize that this is only a small component of the immense and
6

long-term effort that combating global climate change will require. In addition to ratifying the
1997 treaty, the administration should become fully involved with additional major environmental initiatives. These initiatives should include both international efforts (such as the
2004 Stockholm Convention on POPs and the COP15 Copenhagen UNCCC in 2009) and domestic efforts (like the development of alternative energy technologies and implementation of a national cap-and-trade program).
Environmental rationale for this approach
The environmental reasons why President Obama should support this approach is clear.
American ratification of the Kyoto Protocol will greatly contribute to a united global effort to combat climate change. Even the most outspoken skeptics of global warming acknowledge that world climate patterns have undergone uncharacteristically extreme changes in the 150-year period of modern industrialization, and it makes sense that worldwide preventative actions be enacted. Such actions are much more likely to succeed if they are enacted cooperatively by the members of the international community.
However, in order for any collaborative effort to be effective, all of the major contributors to the problem must be committed to finding a solution. Therefore, the U.S. (as the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse pollutants) must adhere to the principles of the Kyoto
Protocol in order for the treaty to have a significant impact on the global fight against climate change.
Political rationale for this approach
Although the Kyoto Protocol has faded from view within the international community,
President Obama can restore U.S. credibility and strengthen the U.S. image as a world leader in the field of environmental protection by reviving the Kyoto Protocol. Since it is well
7

acknowledged that the problem of climate change cannot be resolved without a strong U.S. commitment, this would signal the dedication required to renew international cooperation with the United States at the helm of leadership. Moreover, this action would strengthen President
Obama’s image as a transformative leader looking to alter the way the U.S. negotiates with members of the international community. Furthermore, since the President campaigned on promises to address environmental issues, failing to do so could harm his credibility both domestically and abroad.
Obstacles to this approach a) Developing nations’ unwillingness to commit to binding agreements
Developing nations (notably China and India) are not obligated to reduce emissions under the
Kyoto Protocol, and have been hesitant to commit themselves to binding agreements. In 1997, the Senate voted unanimously in favor of the Byrd-Hagel Resolution that declared that the
United States would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol until developing nations were subject to similar restrictions as developed nations. Since the treaty cannot be approved without Senate ratification, the President should directly negotiate with developing nations to secure their commitments to formal standards, satisfying the Senate requirement. The President can achieve this goal through direct diplomatic engagement, government persuasion through public diplomacy efforts, technology and resource transfers, and financial incentive endowments. b) Fear of weakened American economy
The fear that ratifying the Kyoto Protocol would weaken the U.S. economy could also hinder
President Obama’s ratification efforts. The President should counter this fear by citing studies that promote the merit of end-of-pipe technology cost reduction. Studies conducted by the
Clinton Administration and the European Union have concluded that the expense of reducing
8

greenhouse gas emissions may be up to 60 percent lower than previously thought. This is due to the fact that initial estimates did not take into account that the use of costly end-of-pipe technologies (that attempt to filter polluted air and prevent acid rain) will naturally be reduced with lower levels of emissions. While his administration should further research the effects of the
Kyoto Protocol’s directives on the American economy, the President should adopt the stance that
GDP may dip with the implementation of emission restrictions, but not by nearly as much as previously thought.
The President should also continue to offer financial incentives to businesses that voluntarily agree to reduce their emissions, as it is clear that they will not do so on their own at a potential economic loss. By continuing the domestic policy of tax incentives and other marketbased approaches, it will be easier to attain the U.S.’s domestic reduction goals.
Conclusion
Reducing the threat of global climate change will require international collaboration. As the world’s only superpower, and as the greatest single emitter of greenhouse gases, it is imperative that the United States shows its commitment to resolving this crisis. Other nations within the international community will not act if they believe their efforts will be fruitless in the face of American inaction. Furthermore, the United States has a moral commitment to do its part to solve one of the greatest threats facing the world. It is time for the United States to reassert its leadership and spearhead the efforts to reverse the trend of global warming.
9