A Vulgar Act of Bravado
Kilaparti Ramakrishna and George M. Woodwell
February 15th, 2002
Three hundred and ninety days after taking his oath of
office, President George W. Bush of the United States of America announced
his long awaited policy for addressing global climate change. The White
House brought laughs from politicians and the public by calling it "a
bold new strategy," when in fact the announcement amounts to a continuation
of the administration's unilateral policy of ignoring the topic and thumbing
its nose at the public and the world.
Mr. Bush affirmed America's commitment to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (adopted in 1992) and announced that America
will cut greenhouse gas "intensity" by 18 percent over the
next 10 years. While he intends to show that the U.S. is taking its obligations
seriously and is reclaiming international leadership, in reality he is
committing his administration and the nation to precisely what it has
been doing all along: increasing domestic oil production and use and
scorning binding regulation. It is mere sleight of hand to tie any reduction
in carbon emissions to an increase in economic activity. The fact is
that without any leadership on the part of government, the efficiency
of energy usage in support of economic activity has increased dramatically
in recent years. Governmental interest might speed the transition, but
Mr. Bush is proposing no action at all, electing instead to coast on
a well-developed trend.
Worse, the policy enunciated today spurns the obligations that the U.S.
accepted with its ratification of the 1992 agreement. Under U.S. laws,
once an international agreement is signed with the advice and consent
of the U.S. Senate, it becomes the law of the land. The United States
formally agreed to bring its greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2000
to 1990 levels. The policy released today ensures that even in the year
2012 U.S. emissions will be about 28 percent above those of 1990. If
one were to add to this the 1997 Kyoto Protocol commitment (that the
U.S. signed and all nations but the U.S. now support) of 7 percent reductions
from 1990 levels, the U.S. will be releasing emissions annually in 2012
at a rate 35 percent above its agreements.
Any suggestion that this policy is going to reclaim international leadership
for the U.S. is laughable. All countries, including the U.S., have agreed
that the world is confronted with the threat of global warming, primarily
due to the greenhouse gas emissions from the industrialized countries.
The rich countries also agreed that they should take the first step in
reducing greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels before asking the
developing countries to do the same. By failing to join the other industrialized
countries, which have unanimously agreed to support agreements reached
thus far, the U.S. is pursuing its isolationist approach to global problems.
Although a step in the right direction, we should not forget that these
agreements deal primarily with stabilizing emissions, not with stabilizing
the heat-trapping gas content of the atmosphere as set forth in the 1992
agreement and agreed to by all nations. There is widespread consensus
that this is a global emergency and the objectives agreed to under the
1992 agreement must be met immediately if we are to avoid further dangerously
unpredictable and costly changes in global climate.
Mr. Bush's February 14th initiative seems designed to give the impression
that some dramatic, innovative, aggressive and even generous policies
are being introduced. Upon analysis, however, none of them stands up
to scrutiny. The U.S. has tried voluntary commitments in restricting
pollution, including control of heat trapping gases, and realized that
such measures fail almost universally. Today's policy only continues
voluntary approaches by industry. The nominal increases in financial
resources presented today are no more than a repackaging of existing
initiatives. In some instances the proposals actually reduce investments
in the development of certain clean technologies.
How is it possible to recite the objectives of the 1992 agreement, claim
that the U.S. is firmly committed to those objectives, and then advance
nothing more than a business-as-usual approach? How can one seriously
say that the prescription offered today is in any way a response to the
pronouncements of the scientific community within the United States and
the world at large? How will developing countries, whose greenhouse gas
emissions are set to soar as they begin the process of meeting the basic
needs of their people, react to this action that says that in order to
increase industrial growth, greenhouse gas emissions must also increase?
During the past twelve years, the United Nations and its member countries,
with strong participation by the United States, worked conscientiously
to generate agreement on science surrounding climate change, creating
interest and participation within civil society, particularly its private
sector, while encouraging desperate countries with struggling economies
to join in common action. Since the beginning of the Bush administration,
however, a great deal of damage has been done to this series of fragile
but vital developments. Despite obvious steps to the contrary, the world
community held onto the hope that the U.S. would ultimately, as it has
in the past, do what is right. With the set of measures introduced on
February 14, it has once again scorned the rest of the world, and, in
a vulgar act of bravado, shown those hopes to be futile.
|
