November 16, 2000

An American Farm Bureau Federation official says the roles of forestry and agricultural lands will have to be considered if the United States is to ratify a controversial global warming treaty developed in 1997 but never ratified by the United States. Jon Doggett, an AFBF senior director of governmental relations, said without that consideration "there is no possible way the United States can meet its reduction limit" without dealing a major blow to the U.S. economy.

Last week President Clinton said the United States was committed to working with other nations to find cost-effective ways to battle global warming. While talk of cost-effective methods may be the administration's attempt to cool this political hot potato, Doggett explained that any sincere discussion of how the U.S. could meet climate change mandates must start with the benefits of the nation's agricultural and forestry resources. "You can't get there from here without ag lands being recognized as sequesters of carbon," Doggett said.

Government officials and industry representatives are in The Hague this week for a summit on the so- called Kyoto Protocol from 1997. The AFBF opposes the protocol, which mandates that the United States reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 7% over 1990 levels by 2012, and speculation exists over whether a GOP-controlled Senate ever will approve the treaty. The U.S. delegation to the summit, meanwhile, will be handing out "samples" of its reduction package.

That package includes unrestricted trading of emissions credits and broad use of agricultural lands and forestry as a carbon "sink." The trading of emissions credits has received mixed reaction. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates emissions trading could reduce compliance costs by 20-30%. But many environmentalists believe that countries will "trade" their way out of finding domestic ways to reduce their emissions levels.