Politics, Science Shift Bush Stand on Global Warming

President Bush’s proposal to negotiate a global warming treaty at a U.S. conference next year--a reversal of his position just six weeks ago--followed weeks of criticism of his cautious approach and the conversion of his chief science adviser to the idea, scientists, environmentalists and government officials said Monday.

D. Allan Bromley, Bush’s science adviser, met with experts on global warming two weeks before the Malta summit to be briefed on scientific evidence on the phenomenon. A participant at the meeting concluded, based on remarks Bromley made, that the once-reluctant science adviser had a change of heart after he “got up on the learning curve” of the science, was “beaten up” by Congress for moving slowly, and realized that European nations would charge ahead without the United States if Bush continued to drag his feet.

Bush’s invitation to hold the session represents a response to international and domestic criticism of his previous go-slow approach and suggests that the White House is now willing to afford global warming the importance already granted it by several other Western nations. The decision also indicates a softening of skepticism on the issue by Bromley.

“Clearly, Dr. Bromley seems to be warming up to global warming,” said an Administration source who declined to be identified. “This is far and away a more progressive position for the United States to take. . . . It looks as if some people have begun to realize that the politics of global warming is pretty important here.”

But Sen. Albert Gore (D-Tenn.), one of the chief congressional critics of the Administration’s handling of global warming, remained dubious of the White House move.

“The only thing Bromley has discovered in the last month is political reality,” Gore said.

Environmental Protection Agency chief William Reilly had previously sought unsuccessfully to persuade Bush to call for a treaty-writing conference. Reilly’s proposal was rejected by the White House Domestic Policy Council six weeks ago at the urging of Bromley and White House Chief of Staff John H. Sununu.

At the time, Bromley was “semi-ignorant” on the subject and wanted to “go slow,” recalled Michael Oppenheimer, a senior Environmental Defense Fund scientist who helped brief Bromley two weeks ago.

“With Bromley on (Reilly’s) side--a well-respected scientist and the top technical man in government--the odds changed a little bit,” Oppenheimer said. “I think Bromley changed because he is a man of reason. He was made to focus on the issue because of politics but . . . his judgment is a technically sound one.”

The burning of oil, coal and other fossil fuels that create carbon dioxide and the destruction of forests that absorb the gas are causing a warming of the atmosphere that scientists say could turn verdant pastures into deserts and cause sea levels to rise. The United States and the Soviet Union together produce more than 40% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions.

Experts agree that the phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, will bring about climatic changes but do not agree on when they will occur or on their severity. For example, there is still uncertainity over exactly how the warming trend will affect the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and droughts.

F. Sherwood Rowland, a chemistry professor at UC Irvine who pioneered research on the destruction of the Earth’s ozone layer, said Bromley’s background gives him more clout than previous scientific advisers. Bromley is a nuclear physicist from Yale University.

At a world conference hosted by the the Netherlands the week after the Domestic Policy Council debate, relations between the EPA administrator and the science adviser appeared to be delicate, and representatives of environmental groups publicly charged that Bromley had been sent to the meeting as a White House watchdog.

After the United States and Japan succeeded in watering down a declaration that called for stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions by the turn of the century, the Administration was denounced by members of both parties of Congress and other industrial nations that wanted to forge a major agreement.

Bromley told The Times over the weekend that Bush’s change had come about because “we know a lot more now than we knew even a few months ago.” Several scientific experts on global warming said Monday there have been no major new findings on the warming trend in recent months, nor any new conclusions or reports on its economic repercussions.

“Absolutely nothing,” said Gordon MacDonald, chief scientist and vice president of the Miter Corp., a Virginia-based nonprofit business that works with the Department of Defense in the design and development of computer and radio systems.

MacDonald, a greenhouse-effect expert who attended the recent session with Bromley, called it an “educational” meeting. “He was very much interested in what the state of science is, what we knew and what we didn’t,” recalled MacDonald.

MacDonald said Bromley made it clear that global warming now has his attention and he wants “to learn” about it.

Rafe Pomerance, a global warming expert at the World Resources Institute, a Washington-based environmental think tank, said Bromley has been “on a steep learning curve” since early congressional hearings, when “his knowledge of the issues was not very complete.”

Even before the President’s call for the negotiating meeting, Administration officials had indicated that the United States might be prepared to begin work on an accord next year. The Bush Administration is not expected to unveil its own program and targets for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases until the World Meteorological Convention next November in Geneva.

Administration officials said that Bush told Reilly in a brief telephone call Thursday that he would call for a conference with the United States as host. The President had not discussed greenhouse policy with Reilly since the Holland meeting, although Reilly has met several times with Bromley and Sununu.

Dolan reported from Los Angeles and Abramson from Washington. Times environmental writer Larry Stammer also contributed to this article.