Hot and Bothered
By Debbie Gilbert
DECEMBER 15, 1997:
Realistically, no one expected a
resounding success. When delegates from more than 170 nations
gathered in Kyoto, Japan, during the first 10 days of December to
decide what to do about global warming, the goal was for all
parties to sign a binding agreement to lower their emissions of
carbon dioxide and other gases believed to contribute to the
greenhouse effect.
Problem was, the parties couldnt agree on how much that
reduction should be or how soon it should happen. Each country
was at a different stage of development; each had its own
economic situation to consider. Third World countries contended
that the United States, as the worlds top emitter of carbon
dioxide, should have to make greater sacrifices, and that their
own nations should be exempt from pollution controls, which could
hinder efforts to improve their standard of living.
President Clinton, however, was constrained by Congress
pre-Kyoto declaration that it would not ratify any treaty that
did not include restrictions on developing nations. And Congress
did have a point. Chinas per-capita emissions are only
one-seventh that of the U.S., but China is already the
planets second-biggest emitter, and its society is on a
fast track toward modernization.
Imagine the atmospheric impact when a majority of Chinas
1.2 billion citizens have automobiles. Its projected that
by 2030, developing nations will be responsible for 50 percent of
global carbon-dioxide emissions; so yes, it seems right that they
should accept reduction targets, albeit over a period of years.
But every nation had its own agenda in Kyoto. The European Union,
having already cleaned up its act, wanted everyone else to agree
to substantial cuts in emissions. Oil-producing countries of the
Middle East would agree to cuts only if they were compensated for
lost exports. And tiny island nations, which would be swallowed
up by the sea if global warming causes the oceans to rise, wanted
the biggest cuts of all.
None of this was surprising. What was unsettling was the number
of pundits who came out of the woodwork to question whether
global warming is real. Obviously, the worlds governments
thought the threat was real enough, or they wouldnt have
gone through the trouble and expense of convening a summit in
Kyoto.
The conference came about because of a report released last year
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an
office of the United Nations Environment Programme. There was a
consensus among climate scientists that atmospheric warming had
already begun and could be expected to increase, and that it was
likely caused by human activity.
A small but vociferous band of naysayers disputes this
conclusion, arguing that projections of warming are based on
flawed computer models, and that stricter pollution controls to
head off a nonexistent crisis will jeopardize our economy.
But nothing in science is 100 percent certain, and there are two
good reasons for reducing our greenhouse-gas emissions now, even
if we dont know for sure whether the Earth is heating up.
First of all, if warming is occurring and we dont take
action, the consequences could be disastrous, including flooding
of coastal cities (where about half of the worlds
population lives), decreased agricultural production, and species
extinctions.
Secondly, even if global warming doesnt happen, we should
seize this moment to begin weaning our society away from its
dependence on fossil fuels a finite resource and to
make an all-out push to develop renewable energies. Will this
cost jobs in the oil and coal industries? Maybe. But with the
U.S. economy now as healthy as its ever been, there
couldnt be a better time to get started.
Besides, new EPA regulations will soon require state and local
governments to adopt tighter emissions controls anyway, so a
wait-and-see position makes no sense. Stop the
pollution, and everybody wins.
Debbie Gilbert reports on the
environment for the Flyer.
|