Following upon my submission that the EC suffers from an inferiority
complex vis-a-vis America and that the Kyoto proposals are as much about
political point-scoring as science, an FWer had kindly sent me an article
by James K. Glassman which details this point a little more.
As I've said before, what follows is not an argument against Kyoto. The
main one is that we simply don't know enough about a very complex matter.
Nevertheless, the following paragraphs concern the real world of politics
which can't simply be avoided by trying to work up an avalanche of
hysteria. The article concerns a meeting at The Hague last year.
<<<<
Around the convention hall, protesters had piled sandbags six feet high to
demonstrate how rising temperatures would cause rising flood waters
(another unproven contention). Others carried signs with weird slogans like
"Don't Melt the Penguins." And on Thanksgiving Day, a woman threw a
whipped-cream-and-berry pie in the face of Frank Loy, the weary U.S.
negotiator. Meanwhile, 225 accredited Greenpeace lobbyists -- who comprised
the single largest presence at The Hague -- roamed the hall, heaping scorn
on the Americans, especially on the handful of U.S. congressmen who had
come to observe.
What doomed the meeting from the start was that the Europeans never
intended to let other countries utilize sinks and emissions trading to a
useful degree. The Europeans were after something more: an economic edge
over the U.S. Without sinks and trading, the U.S. could meet the Kyoto
targets only by sharply increasing the price of fossil fuels. Gasoline
would rise by 50 cents or more a gallon; the cost of running industrial
plants and energy-hungry computers would soar. According to a consensus of
projections, the growth of gross domestic product in the U.S. would be cut
by more than half as businesses moved offshore to escape the high tax.
Yet without more European cooperation, the U.S. isn't likely to ratify
Kyoto. Around the time the protocol was drafted, the U.S. Senate resolved,
95-0, that it would not approve a climate treaty that: 1) did not force
developing countries also to cut emissions, and 2) "would result in serious
harm to the economy of the United States."
>>>>
Once again, when the evidence is more complete and there is unanimity among
climatologists, then I'm quite sure that America would jump on board --
indeed, lead the way.
Keith Hudson
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
