SUPPORT OUR
SPONSORS

Organic Valley

Dr. Bronner's
Magic Soaps

Botani Organic

Aloha Bay

Eden Foods

Ode Magazine

Mountain
Rose Herbs

The Green Guide

Bush Ignores Global Warming
Despite Threats to World
Agricultural Production

Bush & Global Warming
by Mark Hertsgaard

Old habits die hard, especially when it comes to US foreign policy.
On November 10 George W. Bush appeared before the United Nations
General Assembly and, in a speech praised by the New York Times for
its "plain-spoken eloquence," admonished his audience that the
responsibility to fight terrorism is "binding on every nation with a
place in this chamber." Bush apparently felt no need to practice what
he preached about international responsibilities, though. On the same
day--indeed, at the very moment--he was lecturing UN members, his own
Administration was shunning negotiations in Marrakech, Morocco, to
finalize the Kyoto accord on global warming.

"How long can the Administration turn its back on issues the rest of
the world cares about--from global warming to trade in small arms--and
expect broad support on issues like the war on terrorism?" asked
Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust. Bush's
double standard is all the more grating, considering that the United
States is the leading source of the greenhouse gas emissions that
cause global warming.

Like terrorism, global warming is an issue in which every nation has a
stake. Already the Earth's glaciers are melting and catastrophic
storms are becoming more severe and more frequent--this, after a mere
1 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperatures over the past century.
Scientists expect four to eleven degrees of additional warming by
2100, bringing more violent weather, flooded coastlines and social
havoc. New research released in Marrakech by the UN Environmental
Program warns that global crop yields could fall 30 percent over the
twenty-first century.

The Kyoto accord addresses this danger by ordering industrial nations
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5.2 percent by 2012, compared with
1990 levels--a very modest target, considering that scientists say
global emissions must eventually be cut 60 percent. Last summer in
Bonn, 178 nations signed the accord; the meeting in Marrakech, where
US officials observed but did not participate, hammered out rules for
implementation. "Other countries have chosen their path, and our
answer is still no," said a Bush Administration official.

Will Marrakech make much difference? The good news is that the world
has put in place a binding framework requiring greenhouse gas
reductions, and this framework will likely become law despite the US
boycott. To come into force, the accord must be ratified by fifty-five
countries, including a group responsible for at least 55 percent of
the industrial world's emissions. Forty smaller nations have already
ratified it, but with the United States holding out, the 55 percent
standard can be reached only if the European Union, Russia and Japan
all ratify. The EU has long been on board, and in Marrakech the
Russians said they were finally satisfied. Japan's deputy chief
cabinet secretary is pushing for a ratification vote in January, and
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has signaled his support. So Kyoto
could become law as early as next spring (although the United States,
because it didn't sign, won't be bound by it). A further bright spot:
Delegates at Marrakech authorized $410 million a year by 2005 for a
"clean development mechanism" to subsidize the shift from carbon-based
fuels in poor countries.

The bad news is that the Kyoto accord got so watered down in Marrakech
that it may have very little practical effect during the next ten
years, when progress is most needed. The original accord relied
heavily on emissions trading, a dubious mechanism that allows
countries whose emissions are less than the maximum permitted, like
Russia, to sell their excess to countries that are over their quota,
like Japan. Now this loophole has been not only codified but expanded.
The chief culprit is Russia, which has 120 million tons of emissions
to trade and which also demanded twice as much credit as previously
agreed on for the role its vast forests can play in absorbing carbon
dioxide through photosynthesis. Meanwhile, two studies published in
Nature this past July suggest that forests are not nearly as effective
in neutralizing emissions as was thought.

Some environmentalists argue that these loopholes can be fixed later,
that the emissions targets will be gradually tightened and eventually
produce meaningful effects. And it's true that since carbon will now
have a price in the marketplace, thanks to emissions trading,
corporations, governments and individuals may make better choices
about the products they produce and consume. US firms might even obey
the accord, despite Washington's stance, in order not to be left
behind by foreign competitors. But wouldn't it be easier if the United
States simply showed as much commitment to the battle against global
warming as it demands from everyone else in the battle against
terrorism?

Mark Hertsgaard is a commentator for NPR's Living on Earth program and
the author of four books, including On Bended Knee (Farrar, Straus &
Giroux) Earth Odyssey: Around the World in Search of Our Environmental
Future (Broadway).