US Destroys Efforts to Stabilize Greenhouse Gases & Stop
Disastrous Climate Change

The USA Desroys the Chance for a Global Climate Change Treaty in the
Hague--EU Governments are Allowing the USA to Get Away with Continuing to
Destroy the Climate of the World

Nov. 2000
By Zac Goldsmith
Editor of the Ecologist Magazine (UK)

Even as a small child, I remember my uncle, Teddy Goldsmith, describing with
certainty how mankind was interfering in the world's climate and how, if
trends continued, we would face catastrophe as a result.

At the time, he was ridiculed. Even respectable men like John Maddox, then
editor of Nature magazine, accused him of unjustified hysteria.

Teddy's response was to commission a cartoon for the Ecologist Magazine,
which he founded and I now edit, in which a man is seen floating in rough
waters, an umbrella in one hand, shouting 'alarmist' at the animals peering
down at him from the safety of Noah's ark.

That was in 1972. With half of Britain submerged under flood waters in
recent weeks that cartoon has taken on the ominous tone of a prophecy.

Two weeks ago - nearly 30 years after that cartoon - world leaders descended
on The Hague, in the Netherlands, in what appeared to be a last-ditch effort
to unite against the problem. In their hands lay the future of our planet.

They were fully aware of their responsibilities. Not one of them disagrees
with the unanimous verdict of the 2,000 scientists on a UN appointed
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that global warming is happening
and that it is no joke. All of them are well briefed on the evidence of
climate change already affecting us: they know that open water has been
increased for first time in human history and that the Arctic ice sheet
has been reduced by nearly half over the past four decades.

They have been told that the vast Greenland ice sheet is melting at a rate
of more than 11 cubic miles each year. And they understand that when just
one sixth of the West Antarctic ice sheet melts, we can expect a one metre
rise in sea level.

Did they listen when scientists told them that this would spell the end of
many of the world's major cities, and would swamp more than 30 per cent of
the world's agricultural land?

Perhaps they were not aware that scientists predict that sea level rises
will be much more dramatic, and that many believe we may be interfering with
the Gulf Stream that brings warm water from the coast of Mexico to our own
[British] coast. And that if this happens, the smile may be wiped from the
faces of those joking about deckchairs in Dorset, as temperatures plummet
to those of Alaska.

In other words, the future of humanity rested on the behaviour of our
leaders in The Hague, where they met to formalise agreements reached at
Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 to reduce global emissions by 5.2 per cent by 2012.
Compared to the 60 per cent reduction needed this was paltry, but it was a
start.

Or at least it should have been. For what our politicians have been doing in
The Hague is fiddling - like Nero as Rome burned - on their violins. Worse,
having acknowledged the depth of the crisis, they have decided to do
precisely nothing about it.

In the face of it, and without wanting to sound too hysterical, this is
tantamount to genocide.

The Americans, in particular, refused point-blank to play ball. Surrounded
by the usual lobby-Mafia - nuclear, logging and oil representatives, as well
as armies of clever dick lawyers - the country that produces a quarter of
all global emissions with just five per cent of the world's population
defended the big business line.

Of course, having acknowledged the problem, they have attempted to make the
right noises - they have had to, much as Hitler justified his invasion of
Czechoslovakia on humanitarian grounds.

But the truth is, while appearing to comply, we will, in effect see a net
increase in US emissions - by roughly the same amount as they were supposed
to decrease their emissions. This they have done expertly by insisting on
the expansion of endless loopholes in the agreement.

Needless to say, the Americans had their way, and European leaders simply
backed down, and the mechanisms that could have sweetened an otherwise
bitter pill have been corrupted beyond recognition.

This is easy to understand in the context of the revolving doors between the
political elite in the US and industry heavyweights: both George W Bush and
Al Gore fostering close links with oil money in their rush to the White
House.

What is less easy to understand is Europe's reaction to these demands. They
screamed and yelled and then gave in.

Britain is reportedly on track to meet its commitment of a 12.5 per cent
reduction (Environment Minister Michael Meacher, has even predicted that the
reduction could be as high as 23 per cent) but our government still refuses
to take real action to combat the problem.

Instead, Tony Blair has promised to spend ten times less on renewable energy
investments - necessary, he has said, to avoid catastrophe - than he spent
on a plastic dome. In short, like much of New Labour, the analysis is good,
but the follow up is nowhere to be seen.

The fact is that our government, like the US, is wedded to big business and
the belief that increasing global trade - no matter what in - is good.

To that end, it has supported EU requirements that this country must, by
law, import basic goods like milk. It has supported massive subsidies that
benefit big corporations producing for long-distance export.

And it has supported the EU's plans to spend more than 400 billion euros on
the world's biggest ever road expansion project - to enable long-distance
trade in basic goods that could be produced more efficiently at the local
level. The climate crisis must force government to rethink dependence both
on the global economy and fossil fuels.

The confident predictions by leading investment groups that a barrel of oil
will cost more than $100 within a few years should be added persuasion to
combine massive investment in alternative energy with a focus on local trade
and production.

Policymakers, particularly those in the US, will complain about the cost,
but they would do well to consider the cost of not taking action.

Economic losses from natural disasters increased from $53 billion in the
1960s to $480 billion in the 1990s, according to the German insurance
company Munich Re. About 80 per cent of these costs resulted from extreme
weather. The insurance industry admits it expects these costs to rise fast.

The Hague summit was a disaster. But ordinary people must not allow our
leaders to close this chapter. It is incumbent on them to take action, and
we must demand that they try again - with or without the US.

If they don't, what are we to make of democracy'? It's often said that it
takes a brave government to tackle issues such as this. God only knows how
today's governments find the courage to do nothing. They should remember
that voters have long memories.

On a more parochial level, on my farm in Devon. I am preparing to plant a
number of trees that only a few years ago would have been planted in October
when the leaves have fallen; today I am still waiting to plant at the end of
November.

Website: www.theecologist.org

* * * * * * * * * * *
DAILY GRIST
27 Nov 2000
Environmental news from GRIST MAGAZINE
http://www.gristmagazine.com

1.
THAT SINKING FEELING
International climate talks in The Hague, Netherlands, collapsed on
Saturday, with U.S. and European negotiators unable to agree on a
plan for reducing emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. Two
weeks of negotiations were intended to flesh out the details of the
Kyoto climate change treaty, but in the end the Europeans rejected a
plan that they said would have allowed the U.S. to get too much
credit for calling its forests and farmlands carbon sinks, thereby
avoiding real cuts in the burning of fossil fuels and emissions of
carbon dioxide. It was the second blow of the week for the top
American negotiator, Frank E. Loy, who on Wednesday got hit in the
face with a custard pie by an environmentalist. The real obstacle to
progress on climate change, writes Bill McKibben in Grist, is that
Americans just don't realize how deadly serious the problem is.

A wrap-up from The Hague -- by Bill McKibben
http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/maindish/mckibben112700.stm

New York Times, Andrew Revkin, 26 Nov 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/26/science/26CLIM.html

CNN.com, 22 Nov 2000
http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/11/22/hague.conference/