June 1999 Vol. 220 No. 6  Washington

Charles D. Matthews,  Contributing Editor

Global warming treaty makes senators hot

The Clinton / Gore gang does not seem to care that many senators do not accept the abominable provisions of Vice President Gore’s Kyoto global warming protocol. During the past 18 months, much has been said and written, pro and con, about this issue, and it will certainly continue to be on a front burner for many months to come. Gore considers the Kyoto global warming protocol a high item on his political agenda for the presidential election. Professional enviro-activists are already in action with well-financed programs directed at the oil and gas companies, as their enemies. A prime battleground in this growing conflict will be right here in Washington — in Congress.

Murkowski will be a key leader. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska; and Sens. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska; Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia; Larry Craig, R-Idaho; Pat Roberts, R-Kansas; Rod Grams, R-Minnesota; Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas; and Michael Enzi, R-Wyoming, recently introduced a bipartisan bill called the Energy and Climate Policy Act of 1999 (ECPA), to replace international mandates reducing carbon gas emissions with more reasonable voluntary programs.

The U.S. Energy Department recently pointed out that, if the U.S. adopts the present Kyoto protocol, American consumers could face — by the year 2010 — 53% higher gasoline prices, 86% higher electric prices, upward pressures on interest rates and new inflation pressures. At a recent hearing before the Senate Energy Committee, a witness testified that the economic downturn accompanying the Kyoto implementation would: 1) depress tax revenues, and 2) erase the surplus we have earmarked to shore up Social Security and reduce the public debt. The accompanying comments are quoted from Sen. Murkowski on introducing the ECPA.

ECPA to the rescue! Chairman Murkowski and his colleagues introduced S. 882 to chart a new direction away from the unachievable UN-mandated, arbitrary, short-term targets and timetables as dictated by the Kyoto protocol. The new direction would focus on: sound science, increased research / development incentives for voluntary action, and public-private technological initiatives based on market economics.

ECPA has three important goals for the best interest of our nation:

1. Creation of a new $2-billion research, development and demonstration program for cost-shared partnerships between government and industry to develop and enhance new technology to help stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. This would have the effect of moving current focus for climate change policy toward a long-term domestic commitment to research and development.
2. Continuous Congressional commitment to supporting voluntary energy efforts to reduce, sequester or avoid manmade greenhouse gas emissions. This would be accomplished by strengthening current laws, rather than by creating new international, bureaucratic governmental regulatory burdens.
3. Establishment of greater accountability and responsibility for climate change and related matters within the Department of Energy by creating a statutory Office of Global Climate Change.

New bureau to reduce bureaucratic red tape. This new proposal can be an interesting and important proposal — if it works right. Many other activities in bloated federal bureaucracies are not clearly focused on responsibility and accountability for carrying out a program. Sen. Hagel called particular attention to this lack of focus in consideration of global climate change that is spread throughout the government. He said, "It is in the White House. It is in the EPA. It is in the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Interior and Energy. All of these organizations have their tentacles wrapped around this issue. So with this (S. 882), we will focus on accountability, responsibility. Let’s get the job done."

1999 supplemental spending bill moving slowly in conference. Congress has been working on supplemental spending bills for some time. Consideration of the issues this year has been particularly difficult because of the emergency defense funding to cover Kosovo. Included in the bill are a number of items of interest to oil and gas companies, including: a loan guarantee program, royalty relief to independents operating on federal land, and extension of the oil royalty valuation moratorium.

The conference committee began negotiating controversial differences in its various disaster relief spending bills. The $1.9-billion Senate bill that was carrying the three oil and gas related provisions ran into rough sledding after the House approved, by a landslide vote of 414–0, a motion to instruct the conferees not to agree to the Senate offsets for emergency spending. The extension of the royalty valuation moratorium had the strongest support for remaining in the final bill, but survival of the $500-million loan guarantee program for producers, and royalty incentives for independents operating on federal lands caused many sleepless nights. Note: as this is being written, the final outcome is still unknown.

Charles D. Matthews is president of Charles Matthews & Co., consultants and advocates on government relations, Arlington, Virginia.

Copyright © 1999 World Oil
Copyright © 1999 Gulf Publishing Company