----- Original Message ----- From: "Miriam Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mike Gurstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 6:31 AM Subject: Column:GD: Kyoto at Bonn > Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 08:22:57 -0400 > Subject: Gwynne Dyer article: Kyoto at Bonn > > Gwynne Dyer > 32 Lyme Street > London NW1 0EE, England Page One > > Kyoto: Scuppered by the Satellites > By Gwynne Dyer > > "If nothing moves forward in Bonn then we will lose momentum and > the process will sink," said Olivier Deleuze, the energy minister of > Belgium, which holds the European Union's rotating presidency at the > moment. Glug, glug, glug. > > "The key question is...will the US let the other parties go ahead?" > asked the EU's environmental commissioner, Margot Wallstrom, as the > countries that signed the Kyoto accord on climate change gathered for the > meeting in the former German capital on 16-27 July. "That is at least what > President Bush promised." > > He was lying. Having paid his debt to the oil and gas industry > (which put 78 percent of its presidential campaign contributions into the > Bush camp's coffers) by abruptly cancelling America's signature on the > Kyoto treaty, George W. Bush's highest priority was to ensure that the > treaty didn't go into effect anyway. Global warming is a long-term problem, > but Bush's priorities operate on a much shorter time-scale. > > Bush's real aim was to sabotage international action on climate > change long enough for US-based energy companies to catch up with their > foreign competition in the new energy technologies, not to kill a > Kyoto-style treaty forever. Two or three years from now, when Exxon and its > friends have caught up with the BPs and Shells of the world, we will see a > different attitude to global warming in the Bush administration. > > Meanwhile, however, the White House must avoid the embarrassment of > looking isolated in its (entirely specious) reservations about the need to > act rapidly on emissions reductions. A lot of Americans already feel > uneasy about their government's attempt to kill off the Kyoto treaty, and > it would be a public relations disaster if the rest of the industrialised > world decided to go ahead even without the US. > > Bush's problem was the European Union has been insisting that it > would ratify and obey the Kyoto accord even if the United States defected. > Everybody in Europe understood that a treaty which does not include the > single country responsible for about 25 percent of global greenhouse gas > emissions will not have much impact on global warming, but the prevailing > view in the EU was that it took ten years to negotiate this treaty, that it > is a worthwhile point of departure -- and that time is running out. > > If we all have to start the negotiations again from scratch a > couple of years from now when US industry is ready to compete, goes the > European argument, then we may miss the boat entirely. Low-lying countries > may be submerged by rising sea-levels, whole regions may be turning into > deserts, just because we let the start-point of a global emissions-control > regime slide downstream by more than a decade to accommodate the United > States. > > So ratify the Kyoto treaty now with all its imperfections, and fix > the problems later, say the Europeans. As for the United States, some > subsequent US administration will come along and sign up either to this > treaty or to a follow-on one that is built in these foundations. (Not many > people in Europe believe in the concept of a Bush second term.) From the > Bush administration's point of view, however, this would be a most > undesirable outcome. > > Apart from the political embarrassment it would cause, > ratification of the Kyoto treaty without US participation would allow > foreign energy companies to reap the benefits of the new markets that it > created before their American rivals were ready. So it is not good enough > to defect from the treaty; you have to kill it. > > How do you do that? Just use the rules of the Kyoto treaty, which > say that it can only go into effect if it is ratified by 55 countries that > together account for 55 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. > All the Europeans are still in, but they can't make the 55 percent > threshold without the industrialised countries that are neither European > nor American: Canada, Australia, and above all Japan. > > Canada didn't even put up a fight. The last time Canada openly > defied the United States was in 1812, and Canadian politicians know which > side their bread is buttered on. Two weeks ago, Ottawa said that it would > not ratify the Kyoto treaty until Washington got around to it, even though > the Canadian government thought it was a good idea. > > Australia was equally heroic. "When I say (the Kyoto treaty) is > dead, what I mean is without the United States it's an ineffective global > response and it won't serve the purpose for which it was constructed," said > Australia's Environment Minister Robert Hill last week, neatly sliding past > the fact that Australia, a major coal exporter, had a powerful domestic > lobby that was opposed to the deal anyway. > > Even without Australia, the Kyoto treaty could still have worked > if the Japanese had honoured their signature, but the Japanese Foreign > Ministry predictably panicked at the thought of confronting the United > States. The US embassy in Tokyo twisted the appropriate arms, and on 9 July > Japan declared that while it shared the Kyoto targets and wanted the > protocol enforced by 2002, it was "not willing to conclude the deal without > the United States." > > End of story, really. The Bonn meeting will close with an anodyne > declaration that there will be further discussions with the US, and a > decade of effort to shape a global response to global warming will go down > the drain. > > Nobody knows the precise speed at which global warming will > overturn the climatic norms on which we base all our assumptions about our > lives and our economies. But the process was already moving a lot faster > than the politics, and now the politics has fallen apart. > ____________________________________________________ > Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are > published in 45 countries. > > Bob Este regularly forwards Gwynne Dyer's columns to The Alliance for > Capitalizing on Change and guests under a special distribution agreement. > If you wish to comment or ask Gwynne a question about one of his columns, > please contact Bob directly at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and he will happily > relay your message. > ____________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive Gwynne's columns, simply email > "unsubscribe GD" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
