Al's Morning Meeting

Maybe you are like me. Before I can understand what all the fuss is about, I need to dust off my memory. I will cover:

• What is the G8?

• What is the Kyoto agreement that will be the center of this meeting's conversation?

• Why did the U.S. pull out of Kyoto while most other countries ratified it?

• What has happened since Kyoto took effect?

• How do you get local on this issue? How much is your state contributing to greenhouse gases?

Here is the summit schedule.

The Washington Post reports:

The United States, the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide caused by burning fossil fuels that scientists say is nudging up global temperatures, has given no sign it is open to compromise at the G8 meeting.

In fact, the United States wants key targets and timetables for combating global warming -- including a pledge to halve emissions by 2050 -- removed from a draft summit communique.

Germany hosts the June 6-8 meeting. [...] Chancellor Angela Merkel wants the club to agree [on] steps to halt global warming to prepare the ground for an extension of the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012.

There will be so many protesters on hand they have built an online schedule of what to protest and when to protest it. Riots on Saturday in Germany were the country's worst in decades.

President George Bush on Thursday proposed a sort of end run to the G8 meeting. Instead of agreeing to anything this week, he proposes a larger meeting of countries later this year that he hopes would result in a 2008 agreement to reduce greenhouse gas. Environmental groups howled that there is not time to put off an agreement.

What is the G8?

The Group of Eight summit is an annual meeting between the leaders of eight major industrial nations: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the U.S. Justice and foreign ministers from the G8 also meet annually. Together, these countries represent about 65 percent of the world's economy. CNN explains:

The original idea behind the summit was to allow world leaders to discuss issues in an intimate setting. The event initially focused on economic issues such as global trade, but leaders have broadened areas of discussion over the years. Topics have included energy, the environment, debt management, poverty and terrorism.

Following are key years in the summit's history:

• 1975: Six leaders of today's Group of Eight meet in France. The six countries are France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and United States.

• 1976: Canada joins, creating the Group of Seven.

• 1977: European Community sends representatives for the first time.

• 1994: Russia attends for the first time, joining political sessions only.

• 1998: Russia begins going to all sessions.

• 2001: Summit in Genoa, Italy, turns violent as protesters clash with police, leaving one demonstrator dead. In recent years, anti-globalization groups have targeted the summit to push a wide range of causes.

What have they done in previous years?

• Previous G8 summits: 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003

What is the Kyoto agreement and why didn't the U.S. ratify it?

The Kyoto Protocol was ratified by 169 countries, but not by the U.S. or Australia. In short, signers agreed to roll back their manmade greenhouse gas emissions to some 5 to 7 percent below 1990 levels. But there were many contentious issues. Major population centers like India and China were exempt. In fact, all but about 30 countries had exemptions. Some countries saw they would have little problem hitting targets because their economies were in a slump and they were not manufacturing as much. The British were already making a big change from coal to natural gas, having tapped a big natural gas field in the North Sea.

Former Vice President Al Gore helped to put the Protocol together in 1997. But the U.S. Senate made it clear it would not ratify the agreement, so while Bill Clinton signed it, the agreement was not binding on the U.S. (It should be pointed out that Clinton did not send the resolution to the Senate for a vote because it was clear it would not pass.)

Early in his presidency, Bush, who had made campaign promises to cut carbon dioxide pollution, pulled out of the Kyoto accord. The European Union and nature groups threw a conniption.

Here is what the president said in June 2001 to explain why he thought Kyoto was a bad deal for the United States:

Our country, the United States[,] is the world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases. We account for almost 20 percent of the world's manmade greenhouse emissions. We also account for about one-quarter of the world's economic output. We recognize the responsibility to reduce our emissions. We also recognize the other part of the story -- that the rest of the world emits 80 percent of all greenhouse gases. And many of those emissions come from developing countries.

This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol.

India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto. These and other developing countries that are experiencing rapid growth face challenges in reducing their emissions without harming their economies. We want to work cooperatively with these countries in their efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions and maintain economic growth.

Kyoto also failed to address two major pollutants that have an impact on warming: black soot and tropospheric ozone. Both are proven health hazards. Reducing both would not only address climate change, but also dramatically improve people's health.

Kyoto is, in many ways, unrealistic. Many countries cannot meet their Kyoto targets. The targets themselves were arbitrary and not based upon science. For America, complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases for consumers. And when you evaluate all these flaws, most reasonable people will understand that it's not sound public policy.

In fact, as U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel put it, "Only 30 nations of the world, essentially, were given mandates as to roll back their manmade green[house] gas emissions to some 5 to 7 percent below those 1990 levels. But it did not include nations like China, South Korea or India."

That was 2001. Six years later, how hard has it been for countries that signed the Kyoto agreement to reach their agreed limits?

Well, Canada, for example, has stabilized its emissions but is a long way from hitting the Kyoto targets. In fact, Canada's emissions last year were more than 32 percent above the Kyoto levels.

There is a fair amount of disagreement over whether European countries have come close to their targets. In congressional testimony, Gore claimed reductions were going well. But as with all things Kyoto, there is a lot of room for argument. See this story from National Review Online.

What about the president's opposition to China and India being exempted? What about claims Kyoto would cost too much?

The Natural Resources Defense Council takes on those and other points. Of course, the NRDC disagrees with the president on every point.

What would Kyoto have required from Americans?

A Department of Energy summary of the impact of the Kyoto Protocol said that in order for the U.S. to have lived under the agreement, American coal use would have had to drop up to 77 percent by 2010, that we would have had to cut oil use by up to 13 percent, that nuclear power plants would have had to stay on line longer, and that natural gas and renewable energy use would have had to seriously rise. In short, the cost to businesses, to industry and to individuals would have been high.

What did Kyoto require from other countries?

The European Commission sets out the details of the Kyoto agreement:

The developed countries commit themselves to reducing their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases by at least 5 percent. This group target will be achieved through cuts of 8 percent by Switzerland, most Central and East European states, and the European Union (the EU will meet its target by distributing different rates among its member states); 7 percent by the US; and 6 percent by Canada, Hungary, Japan, and Poland. Russia, New Zealand and Ukraine are to stabilize their emissions, while Norway may increase emissions by up to 1 percent, Australia by up to 8 percent and Iceland 10 percent. The six gases are to be combined in a "basket," with reductions in individual gases translated into "CO2 equivalents" that are then added up to produce a single figure.

Each country's emissions target must be achieved by the period 2008-2012. It will be calculated as an average over the five years. "Demonstrable progress" towards meeting the target must be made by 2005. Cuts in the three most important gases -- carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20) -- will be measured against a base year of 1990 (with exceptions for some countries with economies in transition).

So what is the Bush administration suggesting?

The president put forward an environmental policy called Clear Skies. It sets mandatory limits on sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury emissions. Click here to see what it means to each state.

Here is the White House page with all of the other stuff the president will say he accomplished when it comes to the environment.

So how is the U.S. doing in lowering greenhouse gases without being tied to the international treaty?

The Environmental Protection Agency released its annual U.S. greenhouse gas inventory about a month ago. Now, the bad news. The EPA says total emissions, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride, increased 0.8 percent during 2005.

Note -- that is not a decrease. It is an increase, and it is an increase of about the same rate the EPA measured from 1990 to 2005.

Now, a little good news. In 2006, the U.S. experienced a 1.3 percent drop in carbon dioxide emissions. It was the first drop in 11 years.

Still, EPA administrator Stephen L. Johnson spins the numbers this way: "As America's economy continues to grow, our aggressive yet practical strategy is putting us on track to reach President Bush's goal to reduce our nation's greenhouse gas intensity 18 percent by 2012."

The report indicates that overall emissions have grown by 16 percent from 1990 to 2005, while the U.S. economy has grown by 55 percent over the same period. In other words, the Bush administration says a growing economy will naturally produce more pollution.

Get Local

You can find out how your state, and in some cases even your city, is doing in reducing greenhouse gases.

The Federation of Public Interest Research Groups (PIRG) pulled together what it says is the first state-by-state data of carbon dioxide, which accounts for 84 percent of all greenhouse gases. (Download the full PDF report on the right side of the page.)

PIRG found big differences in states:

Carbon dioxide emissions increased the most in the Southeast, Great Lakes/Midwest and Gulf South regions over the 15-year period. The states experiencing the largest absolute increases in carbon dioxide emissions between 1990 and 2004 are Texas, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, and Georgia. The electric power sector was the primary factor driving the increase in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions between 1990 and 2004.

See page 18 of the report for a rank of the states that emit the most carbon dioxide.

Go to pages 35 to 40 of the report to see state-by-state data on total emissions and specific categories of carbon dioxide emissions. This will help you to see where the biggest problems lie in your state.

See pages 11 to 13 of the report to see what states are doing to reduce emissions.

The Society of Environmental Journalists summarized the findings and offered some advice. 

Many groups, including state PIRGs and others, coordinated on the report. If you're not sure whom to contact in your state, check with U.S. PIRG's Rob Sargent: 617-747-4317.

Some city-level data is also becoming available. New York City released a report on its greenhouse gas emissions April 10, tracking the period from 1995 to 2006. The city says it's "the most comprehensive, detailed inventory of greenhouse gas emissions in U.S. history." The data will provide baseline information as the city tries to reach its goal of a 30 percent reduction by 2030. New York's per capita production of greenhouse gases is already about one-third the national average, due in part to the extensive public transportation in the dense city, but without a change in course, total emissions are projected to increase 25 percent by 2030.

Editor's Note: Al's Morning Meeting is a compendium of ideas, edited story excerpts and other materials from a variety of Web sites, as well as original concepts and analysis. When the information comes directly from another source, it will be attributed and a link will be provided whenever possible. The column is fact-checked, but depends upon the accuracy and integrity of the original sources cited. Errors and inaccuracies found will be corrected.