Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, April 22, 1993 TAG: 9304220109
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A4 EDITION: STATE
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
Clinton, in his first major environmental speech as president, reversed the course of President Bush, who had rejected both actions.
Clinton promised to sign the biodiversity treaty that the United States, alone among major economic powers, refused to endorse at last year's Earth Summit in Brazil.
The treaty is designed to preserve "the miraculous diversity of plant and animal life all across the planet" and is "critically important to the future of the world," Clinton said. He cited the example of the rare Pacific yew tree that produces the anti-cancer agent taxol.
Clinton also broke a logjam among his own advisers by announcing "our nation's commitment to reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases to their 1990 levels by the year 2000."
While Clinton had endorsed that course during his campaign, some of his economic advisers had urged a go-slow approach until more data could be gathered on the economic impact of meeting that target - essentially the argument that kept the Bush administration from making the commitment.
Clinton went further, saying he would direct his administration to "produce a cost-effective plan by August that can continue the trend of reduced emissions," beyond 2000.
John Shales, director of the industry-backed Global Climate Coalition, said that if Clinton insists on stablizing emissions at 1990 levels, it will mean higher taxes and greater regulation of industry "which could chill American industrial growth and capital formation."
Major environmental groups lauded Clinton's speech, but Greenpeace and some smaller groups criticized the "interpretive statement" - worked out with industry representatives and major environmental groups - that Clinton will attach to the treaty.
The interpretive statement was written to resolve concerns that the treaty could force U.S. firms to share their research and technology with the developing countries that provide natural resources for U.S.-developed products, such as new wonder drugs. The administration also worried the treaty language could leave the United States open to unreasonable financial burden.
Jeremy Rifkin of the Foundation on Economic Trends said the interpretive statement, designed to protect the intellectual property rights of U.S. companies, was "a blatant attempt to control the world's genetic resources on behalf of the biotechnology industry."
Memo: shorter version ran in the Metro edition.