The Washington Post reported on December 11 that "Exhausted and bitterly divided delegates to the U.N. climate summit reached a historic accord . . . agreeing to substantial cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases among industrialized countries, but leaving until next year the contentious issue of whether and how the world's poorer nations would participate. . . .
"The treaty, if ratified, will require wealthy nations from North America to Europe to Japan to reduce emissions by 6 to 8 percent below their 1990 levels by 2012. The accord would spur dramatic changes in fossil-fuel-dependent Western countries in what would almost certainly be the most ambitious and most controversial global environmental undertaking in history.
"Under the proposal, the United States would cut its emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels, significantly lower than the original U.S. proposal, which was to stabilize emissions at 1990 levels. The European Union would cut its by 8 percent, a little more than half the 15 percent it originally proposed. Japan would cut its emissions by 6 percent as part of the compromise figure worked out by conference delegates. . . .," the write up said.
The newspaper went on to explain that, "against a tense and difficult backdrop, delegates were able to reach final agreement on many key components of the pact -- including the U.S. proposal to include six major greenhouse gases within the established limits, rather than three . . . .
"The agreement creates a means by which companies in rich nations can provide technology and money to help cut emissions at power plants and other polluting sites in underdeveloped nations. Administration officials argue that such joint ventures reduce emissions in the poorer nations and act as 'a bridge' toward eventually involving them in a more comprehensive program of emission reductions.
"But in a setback for the United States, a decision on many details of the programs affecting the more than 130 developing nations at the conference was delayed for at least a year - - until next November's global climate summit in Buenos Aires. The postponement was forced by stubborn opposition from key developing countries, chiefly India and China, which made a last-minute stand against the proposals. Developing countries also rejected more ambitious calls to curb the growth of their own greenhouse gas emissions. . . . The failure of developing nations to take a stronger action raises serious questions about whether the treaty can win [U.S.] Senate ratification, but in any case it may be years before the Senate gets to consider it . . . .," said the newspaper. Dow Jones recorded that, "In Washington, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said the Senate 'will not ratify a flawed climate treaty.'"
The Washington Post, however, noted that, "The president [U.S. President Clinton] pronounced himself pleased with what he called a 'truly historic agreement' saying it was 'environmentally strong and economically sound . . . . I wish it were a little bit stronger on developing nation participation,' he said. ' But we opened the way . . . . It is a huge first step, and I did not dream when we first started that we could get this far.'"
# # # # #
( top of page | back )