As a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the United States committed to the objective of achieving "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system"; and to preparing "national action plans" to address emissions of greenhouse gases. Specifically, under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol, the United States would have committed to reducing its average annual net carbon-equivalent emissions of six gases—carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), nitrous oxide, methane, perfluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—by 7% below 1990 levels (1995 for the fluorinated gases) over the five-year period 2008-2012. If it had been ratified by the Senate, the Kyoto Agreement would have moved the debate beyond the mix of "study," "no regrets," and "voluntary actions" policies of the George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush Administrations. Because of the uncertainties associated with global climate change—the extent to which global climate change is occurring, what the effects might be and their magnitude, the economic and social consequences that would follow from actions to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, the relationships between emissions and economic activity, the costs of actions or of taking no action, the time frame of impacts, etc.—each individual's perception of what, if anything, to do is strongly influenced by personal and community values; perceptions of human progress and adaptability; experience, education and training; and outlook in how to cope with risks and uncertainty. These perspectives, which can intertwine and overlap, are:
that environmental problems are the result of inappropriate or misused technologies, and that the solutions to the problems lie in improving or correcting technology; that environmental problems are the result of market failures, and that the solutions to the problems lie in ensuring that market decisions take into account all costs, including environmental damages; and that environmental problems result from a combination of ignorance of, indifference to, and even disregard for, the ecosystem on which human life ultimately depends, as well as for the other living creatures that share the planet; and that the solutions to environmental problems lie in developing an understanding of and a respect for that ecosystem and in providing mechanisms for people to express the priority they place on the environment in their daily choices. For shorthand, they might be termed the technological lens , the economic lens , and the ecological lens , respectively. The purpose here is not to suggest that one lens is superior to another, but rather to articulate the differing perspectives in order to facilitate communication among different parties and interests. The government's role in this scenario is to ensure the correct market signals. Consumers' desires are seen as responsive to price. The issue then is for the price to reflect the costs of relevant externalities. The private sector can solve the problem if given sufficient incentive with minimal governmental interference.
The 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change requires that signatories, including the United States, establish policies for constraining future emission levels of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2). The George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush Administrations each drafted action plans in response to requirements of the convention. These plans have raised significant controversy and debate.
This debate intensified following the 1997 Kyoto Agreement, which, had it been ratified by the United States, would have committed the United States to reduce greenhouse gases by 7% over a five-year period (2008-2012) from specified baseline years. Controversy is inherent, in part, because of uncertainties about the likelihood and magnitude of possible future climate change, the consequences for human well-being, and the costs and benefits of minimizing or adapting to possible climate change. Controversy also is driven by differences in how competing policy communities view the assumptions underlying approaches to this complex issue.
This paper examines three starting points from which a U.S. response to the convention is being framed. These starting points, or policy "lenses," lead to divergent perceptions of the issue with respect to uncertainty, urgency, costs, and government roles. They also imply differing but overlapping processes and actions for possible implementation, thus shaping recommendations of policy advocates concerning the federal government's role in reducing greenhouse gases.
A technological lens views environmental problems as the result of inappropriate or misused technologies. The solutions to the problems lie in improving or correcting technology. The implied governmental role would be to provide leadership and incentives for technological development.
An economic lens views environmental problems as the result of inappropriate or misleading market signals (prices). The solutions to the problems lie in ensuring that the prices of goods and services reflect their total costs, including environmental damages. The implied governmental role would be to improve the functions of the market to include environmental costs, so the private sector can respond efficiently.
An ecological lens views environmental problems as the result of indifference to or disregard for the planet's ecosystem on which all life depends. The solutions to the problems lie in developing an understanding of and a respect for that ecosystem, and providing people with mechanisms to express that understanding in their daily choices. The implied governmental role would be to support ecologically based education and values, as well as to promote "green" products and processes, for example through procurement policies, efficiency standards, and regulations.
Some initiatives are underway; all the perspectives are relevant in evaluating them and possible further policies. The purpose here is not to suggest that one lens is "better" than another, but rather to articulate the implications of the differing perspectives in order to clarify terms of debate among diverse policy communities.