And that`s where Clean Hands appeared, which allowed me to overwhelm the Americans to act. “We have agreements with our provinces to reduce acid rain emissions in Eastern Canada to half of their 1980 level by 1994. But that`s only half the solution — because the other half of our acid rain crosses the border, directly from the United States, falls on our forests, kills our lakes, pollutes our cities. I told them, “They are aware of Canada`s serious concerns about acid rain. In Canada, acid rain has already killed nearly 15,000 lakes, another 150,000 are damaged and another 150,000 are threatened. Many elovalizing rivers in Nova Scotia no longer support the species. First-class farmland and significant parts of our majestic forests receive excessive amounts of acid rain. Fortunately, we avoided such a damaging judgment of history by moving forward until we talked about a deal. And one of the things he wanted to do was an acid rain deal with Canada. There were two reasons to adopt the clean hands approach. First, it was the right thing to do. And second, it provided strong empirical evidence against Washington`s argument that the only reason we wanted to clean up acid rain was that Canada could sell more stream of clean water to the United States.
Stewart recognizes a big difference between fighting acid rain and fighting climate change. The political climate in the United States has changed dramatically since the time of the first President Bush – and the current tenant of the White House is much less interested in environmental issues. And then, at the Shamrock Summit in Quebec City in March 1985, President Reagan agreed to a trial of emissaries over acid rain. He appointed his former Transport Minister Drew Lewis as his emissary, and I appointed the former Premier of Ontario, Bill Davis, to Canada. They reported directly to the President and the Prime Minister. “Acid rain was easier to solve than climate change,” he said. “But the most important lesson of the acid rain, I think, is when we stopped listening to industry lobbyists who were telling us it was going to destroy the economy.” This Agreement shall not be considered to weaken the rights and obligations of the Contracting Parties in other international conventions binding on them, including those contained in the Boundary Waters Treaty and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 as amended. . . .