To: jlallen who wrote (134497 ) 4/1/2001 6:49:45 PM From: E Read Replies (1) | Respond to I'm sure GWB will be able to get us out of a recession. Also to handle the environment responsibly. He's a brilliant man.The Clinton Administration will be judged upon whether it sets an early and strong target for emissions reductions. If it does not, a climate change treaty signed this December could quite possibly do more harm than good.It should come as no surprise that the fossil fuel industry wants to dramatically postpone emissions reductions. Most of its analysis concludes that early emissions reductions are premature and should take place at least 20-30 years hence. This is remarkably consistent with the Clinton Administration's anticipated policy because the Administration has advocated a 2012 start date, and then proposed that countries be allowed to "borrow" emissions from the future. It is likely, under such a scenario, that actual reductions below 1990 levels wouldn't take place until 2017-2020, or later. developing countries must start reducing emissions as soon as possible given their massive projected future emissions. In 1992, President Bush signed a treaty called the Framework Convention on Climate Change which stated that industrialized countries would lead the way given the fact that they bear historical responsibility for global warming and have the highest per capita emissions. The sooner the industrialized world demonstrates emissions reductions the sooner developing countries will follow.Ultimately, whether the Clinton Administration chooses to support an early and strong target is a basic litmus test. This is at heart a moral question because these changes will be felt in the future and by those least able to adapt to global warming. If it wants to avert the threat of dangerous climatic change to the nation at large and provide a legacy for future generations, then it will support an early and substantial target. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that to stabilize the climate at current concentrations of greenhouse gases, emissions would have to be reduced by 50-70%. We must get down to business. A 20% reduction below 1990 levels by 2005 is a reasonable first step. It is a minimally acceptable position that determines whether the United States is capable of the visionary leadership required to provide a stable and prosperous future. Once we reach the point of major climatic disruption and its consequent impacts, it will be too late to reverse the damages. ozone.org
