washington

Two views: contrasting increases proposed between 1997 and 1999 for applied energy research by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and in the Clinton administration's 1999 budget request.

Energy policy experts are sharply divided about the adequacy of a proposed research and tax incentive package, worth $6.3 billion over five years, that the Clinton administration says is needed for the United States to comply with the Kyoto agreement on climate change.

The package — part of the budget proposals announced last week — has been welcomed by supporters of the Kyoto deal. It is the administration's first action to comply with the agreement, and may be its only action in advance of the agreement's ratification by the US Senate.

But economists, including those at the Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent branch of the government charged with assessing such matters, doubt whether the package will have much impact on total US emissions of carbon dioxide. According to the EIA, these will exceed their 1990 levels by 34 per cent by 2010; the Kyoto accord requires emissions reductions of 7 per cent by then.

At a hearing today (12 February) of the Science Committee of the House of Representatives, chaired by James Sensenbrenner (Republican, Wisconsin), Republicans may launch an attack on the package that could further diminish its impact.

The package consists of $3.7 billion of tax incentives for businesses and consumers, and $2.7 billion of spending on research and development of technologies to cut carbon emissions, over the period 1999-2003.

The tax incentives include credits of $3,000 for individuals buying big cars that use less fuel — there will be no incentive to buy smaller vehicles, says the administration — and a batch of similar credits for everything from solar roof panels to full-blown combined heat and power systems.

The research and development proposals are broadly based on recommendations made last November by a panel of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, chaired by John Holdren of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Its report called for extra investment in energy supply research at the Department of Energy (DOE) of $370 million this year, rising to $1 billion by 2003.

It is difficult to compare what Holdren asked for with what the budget delivers. The report based its recommended increases on a level of spending for 1998 that was subsequently cut by the Congress. For example, Holdren suggested that research in solar and renewable energy be increased next year by $130 million, to $475 million. The Clinton budget does ask for a substantial increase, of $90 million. But, because the baseline has been cut back, the Clinton proposal increases spending to just $390 million. In other words, the budget proposal goes halfway to meeting the Holdren panel's expectations.

Overall, the Holdren report envisaged extra spending of $3.8 billion at DOE over the five years from 1999 to 2003. The Clinton budget proposes extra expenditure of $1.9 billion at the department over the period — again, half what the report asked for. The rest of the $2.7 billion research and development package proposed by Clinton is spent in other agencies, chiefly the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

A spokesman for the EPA was unable to provide a detailed breakdown of this expenditure. But briefings to Congress indicate that the extra funds will go to technology partnership programmes between the agency and industry. Such programmes have, in the past, been strongly resisted by Republicans in the Congress.

If the package is implemented, spending on energy supply research and development will still be at historically low levels. This investment peaked at almost $10 billion, in today's money, in 1978.

The Holdren report sought to lift it from a 1997 trough of just $1.3 billion. Mike Doyle (Democrat, Pennsylvania), a member of the science committee and supporter of coal research, says: “$2.7 billion [over five years] is a pittance. We should be spending maybe ten times as much if we're serious about this.”

Testifying before the science committee last week, Jay Hakes, administrator of the EIA, said that the long life of cars, buildings and factories ensured that there were “no quick fixes” to reducing emissions.

EIA already assumes improvements in energy efficiency in its projections, he said, adding that changes in those assumptions resulting from new technology “don't come close” to stabilizing US carbon emissions. “It's unlikely that any reduction can be achieved without a price mechanism,” he said.

Government officials argue that the new energy research effort is more focused than before. They say the old programmes involved large and unproductive ‘technology demonstrators’. The new programmes — such as a Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, recommended by Holdren — allow universities and government laboratories to compete for funds under carefully supervised peer review.

But environmentalists have nevertheless declared war on the new nuclear initiative. And according to congressional staff — even liberal Democrats — the DOE programme contains items that look more like industry support than peer-reviewed research.

As the proposal passes through Congress, its fate will depend on the wider budget picture and on Republican sentiment towards Kyoto. At last week's science committee hearing, some Republicans expressed support for energy research. Roscoe Bartlett (Republican, Maryland) said he did not believe in manmade global warming, but still wanted research on alternatives because they are needed to replace fossil fuels.

Alden Meyer, a lobbyist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, which supports strong action to reduce emissions, hopes and believes that the administration will fight hard to keep the package in the budget. “The question is whether the Republicans will oppose it, as a proxy vote against the Kyoto deal, or support it as something in line with their view that a carrot, and not a stick, should be used” to cut emissions, said Meyer. “I think they are split, currently.” But, even if the package prevails, there is little evidence that it will help the United States to comply with its Kyoto target.