Insensitive decision

THE UNITED STATES finds itself almost entirely alone after its decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases (GHGs). But that is unlikely to make a difference to its decision because in less than three months the Bush Presidency has shown that the new U.S. Government is not very sensitive to either domestic or global environment concerns and that it is more open in its alliance with business interests that are against major green initiatives.

Contrary to what the U.S. President, Mr. George W. Bush, claims, the overwhelming majority opinion in the world scientific community is that the threat of a major change in the world's climate - rising temperatures and sea-levels - is real and becoming ever more likely. There is therefore an urgency to act now, especially because reversing the process will take decades and not years. However, ever since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was signed in 1992 there has been little evidence of any global control over the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. The original target in the Convention was a lowering by 2000 of the 1990 level of emissions. When that seemed impossible to achieve, the deadlines were pushed back and the targets lowered. The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 called for a 5.2 per cent reduction in emissions compared to 1990 levels for 38 industrialised countries - with the target to be achieved only between 2008-12. It was acknowledged then, outside governments, that this was too small a reduction being aimed for over too long a period. It was also known in 1997 that the U.S., during the Clinton Presidency, was not in favour of even the reduced targets unless the developing countries (India and China in particular) contributed to the effort. But the world's biggest polluter of the atmosphere - with 5 per cent of the global population the U.S. contributes to 25 per cent of global GHG emissions - was essentially looking for ways to avoid taking the hard decisions required to cut back on domestic industrial and automobile emissions of carbon dioxide. Hence the search for various ``innovative'' schemes such as trading in pollution credits, setting off forest sinks against GHG discharges and taking credit for assistance to a lowering of emissions in developing countries in order to get round the target. It is important to note that while the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997, two subsequent meetings (in Buenos Aires in 1998 and in The Hague in 2000) could not result in an agreement on how to achieve the targets for 2008-12 and while the U.S. was the main obstacle, differences within west Europe were not minor. In a sense then the U.S. has dealt a mortal blow to what was already an ineffective and weak agreement.

It has always been assumed that the emission of GHGs can be reduced by improvements in efficiency. But considering the magnitude of reductions required efficiency improvements alone cannot do the job. Perhaps the U.S. decision is a more open admission of the fact that without changes in developed country consumption patterns it will not be possible to make meaningful reductions in emissions and to do so will hurt the economy and the consumer. But those decisions have to be taken sooner and not later lest irreversible climate changes take place. It is true that the industrialised countries bear the main responsibility for the build-up of GHGs in the atmosphere and it is therefore they and not the developing countries which should take action to halt the process. But the developing countries' governments would be on firmer ground if they were to show signs of taking some action to check their own emissions. This does not have to be done at the expense of development. To claim, however, that the demands of development do not oblige them at all to address their emissions is to show that they are least concerned about what is a serious global and human problem.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : A new ``dialogue counter''
Next     : Whose morality?