TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/042291/0422102.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 5.9 KB | 119 lines

                                                                                NATION, Page 32

Global Warming: A New Warning


A report on the greenhouse effect could prod the White House
clique that wants to go slow on protecting the environment

By RICHARD LACAYO -- Reported by Michael Duffy/ Washington


    It may not be easy to determine if the greenhouse effect
is causing a worldwide rise in global temperatures, but the
heated atmosphere around the White House has been unmistakable
whenever that topic -- or any other environmental question --
was raised. From the earliest days of the Bush Administration,
there has been heavy friction between William Reilly, director
of the Environmental Protection Agency, and a White House
faction led by White House chief of staff John Su nunu and
Budget Director Richard Darman, who are apt to see red when they
hear the word green. For them, policies designed to protect the
environment look like brakes on economic growth and therefore
should be implemented cautiously, if they are put into effect
at all.

    Last week a panel of the National Academy of Sciences
issued a long-awaited report on global warming -- the theory
that a buildup of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere is causing temperatures to climb,
threatening crops and coastal areas that could be drowned under
rising oceans if the polar ice caps melt. Though both sides
could find some support for their positions in the study, its
findings and recommendations could prod the go-slow faction in
the White House.

    While acknowledging that predictions of global warming are
highly uncertain, the panel insists that should not be used as
an excuse for delaying action to lessen its possible effects.
The panel concluded there is a "reasonable chance" that by the
middle of the next century global temperatures will rise
anywhere from 2 degrees F to 9 degrees F. That threat, the panel
declared, is "sufficient to justify action now."

    Then the panel laid out the action it wants, the first
time a scientific body has issued recommendations on the
subject. Basically, they add up to taking out what the panel
called "insurance" against the worst-case scenario of global
warming. Among other things, the commission urged the White
House to toughen the inadequate energy plan that it unveiled in
February. To achieve a 30% increase in automobile fuel
efficiency, the panel called for "tax incentives" or regulation,
the latter a notion that makes the President flinch. The report
also suggested raising overall automobile mileage standards from
the current level of 27.5 to 32.5 m.p.g. The President has so
far resisted that move, though members of the panel met with him
privately at the White House last week to urge the idea.

    The report brushed aside claims, many emanating from the
White House, that reducing greenhouse emissions would be wildly
expensive and a blow to economic growth. In February the
Administration trotted out estimates that energy-tax increases
of as much as $250 for each ton of removed gases would be needed
to curb emissions significantly. To the contrary, the panel
estimated that reduction of between 10% and 40% in greenhouse
emissions could be achieved by doing such comparatively simple
things as making buildings and power plants more energy
efficient at little or no cost to the economy.

    The faction led by Darman and Sunu nu, however, could
point with satisfaction to some parts of the study. For example,
the commission declined to recommend explicit target dates or
percentage goals for the reduction of CO2 emissions. Such steps,
which have been taken by most European nations, are firmly
opposed by the Administration. Moreover, the U.S. has already
adopted some of the other measures that the report urges,
including investing in global climate research (to the tune of
$1 billion) and planting millions of trees that can become
storehouses for CO2. Though Bush undertook those actions for
other reasons, they double as defenses against global warming.
The panel also used a cost-benefit analysis that takes into
account the price of implementing its recommendations, an
approach that Darman and Su nunu favor.

    The report's main benefit could be to reinforce a new
spirit of cooperation between the sniping Administration
factions. Last year Reilly won a major victory when Congress
passed the Clean Air Act over Darman's objections. But Darman
and Sununu had seemed to have the upper hand, and the
President's ear, on global warming. Bush campaigned on the
promise to curb the increase of greenhouse gases, which are
produced chiefly by the burning of coal and oil. But the
emissions are the exhaust of an industrial economy that Bush is
loath to regulate. His instinct was strengthened by the fact
that computer models predicting the impact of global warming are
imprecise, leaving scientists unsure just how bad the problem
is likely to get. Su nunu seized upon those uncertainties,
insisting it would be foolish to take costly preventive measures
against a calamity that might never happen.

    But during the past year, Administration infighting on the
greenhouse effect seems to have subsided. "Everyone is getting
along swimmingly," insists a Sununu aide. While that may be an
overstatement, it appears that global warming will no longer be
a cause for conflict in the President's immediate circle -- at
least for now. Pollsters tell the White House that the issue is
not high on the public's list of environmental concerns, ranking
below more immediate problems like waste disposal, pollution and
the disappearance of natural areas. With no pressure from below
and little inclination to move at the top, the Administration
is likely to keep the warming issue on a low boil. Will that be
enough to stave off a change in the weather? Keep an eye on the
thermometer.