-Caveat Lector- This article from NYTimes.com has been sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Goals Clash at the Summit Meeting on Global Warming August 31, 2002 By RACHEL L. SWARNS JOHANNESBURG, Aug. 30 - The photograph appears in a full-page advertisement in The International Herald Tribune under the headline "Put a Face on Global Warming and Forest Destruction." It is a picture of President Bush, whose country is accused by protesters and some delegates at an international conference here of derailing any hope of progress at the talks to reduce poverty and protect the environment. "Corporate criminals!" the protesters shout as they assail American officials for opposing targets and deadlines intended to promote development while preserving the environment. But in the private negotiating rooms at the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development here, the United States is far from the only country balking at approving a strong, ambitious agreement. Saudi Arabia, Canada, Japan and Australia, for instance, also oppose deadlines for the conversion from oil and gas power to windmills, solar panels and other forms of renewable energy. The European Union objects to eliminating subsidies for activities that threaten natural resources, like commercial fishing. Developing countries have joined the United States in pressing to water down language that would have committed nations to significantly reducing the threat that dangerous chemicals pose to health and the environment. The large number of countries opposed to various targets and time frames is the main reason why negotiators have struggled this week to complete the summit meeting's plan, which is meant to be an ambitious blueprint for the world. On one hand, the United States has been almost alone in refusing to support an agreement to reduce the number of people who lack sanitation by half by 2015. Australia also opposes that time frame. But on the other hand, the American decision to accept timetables for restoring depleted fisheries and for reducing the risk of hazardous chemicals has been nearly lost in the storm of criticism. "The situation has been very polarized, but it's not a matter of singling out one country," said Gustavo Ainchil, the diplomat from Argentina who is leading the negotiations on energy. "You cannot simplify a problem that is very complex." Everyone here supports the summit meeting's overall goals of protecting plants and wildlife, reducing pollution and bringing water, electricity and housing to the poor. But poor nations object to environmental targets or strong language that would require costly intervention on their part. Wealthy nations refuse to budge on subsidies that protect their industries. Oil producers are reluctant to embrace commitments that promote alternative energy sources. Other countries, in many cases, view the deadlines as unnecessary regulation. The result is that the plan, which officials hoped would be completed tonight, is still incomplete, with deadlocks on issues ranging from subsidies to renewable energy and from corporate accountability to globalization. Washington has borne the brunt of the blame for the delay. The United States has the world's largest economy and is one of its largest polluters. Many leaders complain that it has been reluctant to eliminate the agricultural subsidies that make it difficult for poor nations to export to the American market. Other officials complain that it has failed to acknowledge and accept its obligations for cleaning up the environment. Last year, Mr. Bush angered many leaders when he rejected a treaty negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, that set targets for reducing emissions of gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. Mr. Bush said such accords should also bind developing nations, especially China and India, that are also major emitters of such gases. Developing nations have refused, saying wealthy countries are among the largest polluters and should clean up first. The European Union, which wants to set deadlines for resolving environmental problems, has been sharply critical of Washington's reluctance to make commitments to such agreements. "On targets and timetables on the environmental issues, we haven't seen a concrete proposal, nothing at all except watering down the text, avoiding anything concrete," said Jos Delbeke, a senior member of the European delegation. "We cannot understand why the United States, being a world leader, is taking such a harsh stance." Environmentalists agreed, saying the United States deserved the criticism because it had objected to so many critical aspects of the summit meeting's plan, including time frames for converting to renewable energy and for reversing the decline of endangered plants and animals. Among the critics is the Rainforest Action Network, the advocacy group that placed the advertisement in The International Herald Tribune. "Any progress is welcome," Paul L. Joffe, the director of international affairs for the National Wildlife Federation, said of the American agreement on fisheries and chemicals. "But what we've seen so far is very minimal compared to the enormous challenges here and the enormous lack of commitment to goals, timetables and funding." But United Nations officials described the American concessions on fisheries and chemicals as significant. The Americans have agreed to restore depleted fisheries, where possible, by 2015, and to make commitments for sound management of chemicals with the goal of minimizing their adverse effects on health and nature by 2020. Environmental groups complain that the wording is weak. But some officials warn that the intense criticism of the Americans has given a distorted picture of the negotiations, as if the rest of world were eager to embrace difficult decisions. "They're always the focus because they have so much power," said Jon Pronk, the United Nations special envoy to the meeting. "But it's necessary not only to be critical of the Americans," Mr. Pronk said. "You have to be also critical of the Europeans. Agricultural subsidies are outrageously high in Europe. It's complex. It's not only a north-south dispute." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/31/international/africa/31SUMM.html?ex=1031799433&ei=1&en=aa168099bb3849d1 HOW TO ADVERTISE --------------------------------- For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters or other creative advertising opportunities with The New York Times on the Web, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit our online media kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo For general information about NYTimes.com, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
