Hundreds of representatives from countries around the world will gather in Bali, Indonesia next week for the United Nations Climate Change Conference. With the Kyoto Protocol set to expire in 2012 the Bali meeting is viewed by many as a critical crossroads in the fight against global warming. The world is watching with interest to see how the United States, one of the world’s largest producers of greenhouse gas emissions, approaches the issue at the meeting. The U.S. signed but never ratified Kyoto, an earlier international treaty aimed at reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.
A statement issued by the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change noted the gravity attached to the conference. "A new international climate change deal must be put in place in time to ensure that necessary action is undertaken immediately after 2012 when the current phase of the Kyoto Protocol ends," it said.
A number of prominent political figures have issued statements underlying the importance of success in Bali.
“The consequences of global climate change are so pressing that it doesn’t matter who was responsible for the past; what matters is who is responsible for the future – and that means all of us. The rich nations and the poor nations have different responsibilities. But one responsibility we all have, and that is action…action, action, action! It is time to come together in a new international agreement that can embrace rich and poor nations alike,” said California governor Arnold Schwartzenegger.
“We need to set the stage for a comprehensive agreement that tackles climate change on all fronts – including adaptation, mitigation, deforestation, clean technologies and resource mobilization. And we have to do what we can to reach this agreement as soon as possible to ensure a global policy is in place by 2012, when the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol ends. Our goal must be nothing short of a real breakthrough in Bali,” stated UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.
Environmentalists have often criticized the United States for not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. has failed to ratify the agreement under consecutive presidents, citing economic concerns. The theme of economic protectionism remained strong in the Bush administration's rhetoric in advance of the Bali conference. "Our guiding principle is clear: we must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people," President Bush was quoted as saying in a recent White House press release.
But the president also promised that the U.S. was committed to creating an international agreement on global warming under the auspices of the UN. Still environmental groups appeared concerned that the U.S. might bow out of international efforts to combat global warming once again.
A recent statement issued by Greenpeace's took jabs at President Bush's recent efforts to address the issue of global warming. "The 'aspirational targets' that are being promoted by some fora such as APEC or the 'major economies meeting' in Washington D.C. will no be effective in securing the emission reductions required," it read. In September the president addressed what the White House dubbed the "Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change" in Washington.
The Greenpeace statement also called for industrialized countries to commit to reducing climate change causing emissions by at 30 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. "Climate change is undoubtedly the greatest environmental threat facing the planet today," it read. "If we delay we will face a dire global emergency in the 2020's which will require rates of emissions reductions, which in the past have only been associated with massive economic collapse, i.e., with the collapse of the Soviet Union."
Australia, a key ally for the Bush administration, recently reversed course on global warming. That country has elected a new president who has promised to make fighting global warming a priority, and appears ready to accept the Kyoto Protocol. Like the U.S., Australia had long refused to ratify Kyoto for economic reasons. The development further isolated the Bush administration and its go it alone approach to global warming.
What do you think the U.S. should do in Bali next week? Should the U.S. continue to go it alone? Or should it join its allies by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and backing future international efforts to address the issue of global warming?
Our World is a weekly column by Gather political correspondent David Anderson. It focuses on the environmental problems facing our nation and our world. David is a graduate student studying Political Science at the University of New Hampshire. See past editions of the column by clicking here.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 40
Of course we should join everyone else and get to work on this worldwide problem, but my guess is that Bush will pay lip service and quietly obstruct any meaningful participation by the US. We really need to get rid of him and his cabal of arrogant ideologues! Only a year to go...
Thanks.
He has passed bills allowing corp. a non disclosure on the pollution they are putting out.
Do you think he is going to tell them now they have to stop? This has been going on for sometime, new rules but you have 20 years to come into compliance. Big companies have been killing us for decades.
to answer your question, we are going to remain a planetary global warming pariah until we have a Dem President- or John mcCain. The rest of the Republicans are probably unwilling to cross the large numbers of Republican voters who are behind the times on climate change and do no know (or do not WANT to know) that it is real and requires real action to combat.
For that reason alone, much hinges on 2008.
Before 2008? Bush is willing to concede everything short of actually doing anything. He no longer cares much about what people think of him- and that is sort of logical because he is never going to see a 50% approval rating again no matter what he says or does. I am not being mean spirited here, it's just the facts.
The only "greening" GWB is concerned about is the folding, paper stuff that creates a bulge in his hop pocket. His tunnel vision is focused only on personal power, and financial gain for himself and his corporate cronies. He's done a great job of running this country into the ground, he's managed to destroy the respect for America of nearly every other country. He will be the jester at Bali.
During the past seven years (with one more to go) I believe that enough disgust and anger has built up within the hearts and minds of the American citizens that it isn't going to take much to put us over the edge. Bush's actions and the decisions he'll present at this conference (on behalf of the U.S. citizens!) could easily send us into a revolution unlike anything we've ever seen.
My opinion.
I wish I thought Bush cared enough about our country and our world to take responsibility and begin the efforts to address the issue. I don't, however, see it happening.
How would this work out? My earlier articles discussed a number of such policy details. To reduce carbon dioxide, we should tax fossil fuel and spend the proceeds to subsidize local supply of renewable energy. To reduce methane, we should tax meat and use the proceeds to subsidize things such as vegan-organic restaurants in communities without roads. To reduce nitrous oxide, we should tax fertilizers, using the proceeds to subsidize agrichar. Similarly, a shift could be achieved from the conventional way of making concrete to better alternatives. Nations should adjust the percentage of each tax depending on their meeting of annual targets, keep each other informed about progress and review policies on an annual basis.
I will point out the fact that the president has not been alone in working to prevent the U.S. from jumping on board Kyoto. The Senate has shown no interest in ratifying the agreement since Bill Clinton first signed it back in the 1990's.
Democracy can solve this Global crisis
If these Hundreds of representatives from countries around the world sign a new treaty which stipulates that nations not participating would be boycotted and no trade will transpire between those nations which have signed this agreement and those who refuse. MAJORITY RULES !
Without penalties harsh enough and with big enough teeth, any treaty can be broken or ignored.
State plainly, nations not adhering to this treaty shall not have trading rights with signatory nations or at the very least an import duty that would place such a high burden on free trade that it would compell nations to become signatories.
When has there ever been a dollar for dollar return exclusively for a particular program, financed by an exclusive tax ? Hell, all one needs do is look at the Social Security program to see that generated, dedicated funds do not last long when siphoned off to boost the general fund.
making concrete to better alternatives
BINGO !
Concrete Applications of Hemp in Sustainable Construction
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/etap/pdfs/may06_hemp.pdf
Making Products for Building Construction from Hemp
http://www.construction-technologies.com/lyfordg/Hemp/hemp.html
Hemp Fiber Composites ~ Typical applications include automotive interior substrates, furniture and other consumer products. Hemp fiber is also being used to produce mineral based composites, in much the same way polypropylene or glass fiber is used to reinforce cement or plaster.
http://www.hempline.com/applications/composites/
Hemp for housing ~ Hemp concrete six times stronger and lighter
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2692.html
Rebuilding in a developing world by Scott Blossom
http://www.hemphasis.net/Building/building.htm
The ecosystem is beginning to show many signs that the Earth is continually seeking to balance the many forces that are acting upon it. We can no longer deny the fact that our continual drive for economic growth has a drastic effect on the natural capital that our traditional economy is based upon. Many great leaders of this country such as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington have sighted the importance of local agriculture and independence from foreign resources.
Renewable Energy ~ Democrat-Republican 2008 Presidential Iowa Caucus by Richard T.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977185132
~@~
Reauthorization of Industrial Hemp would initially decrease, eventually making public production of Marijuana a thing of the past. The necessity of ventilated grow rooms to prevent cross-polination of Marijuana and Industrial Hemp would become such a burden that the seasonal crop of Marijuana in America could be accounted for and distributed. You see, Industrial Hemp cross-polination with Marijuana produces only Hemp, a non-active cousin of Marijuana. Reauthorization of Industrial Hemp for manufacturing purposes would manifest an industry nationwide, thus providing more and more Hemp pollen to drift in the wind.
Perhaps they discarded my memo ?
Having said that, the US also has a moral obligation to work with the international community on this issue. The wording in Kyoto may not be perfect, but it should be possible to accomplish the goals without being compromised by the verbiage...after all, the US is THE superpower, right?
To continue to be in denial and question the overwhelming scientific consensus on the fact that global climate change is real and that it is driven largely by human consumption of fossil fuels is the same tactic that the tobacco industry used in questioning the connection between cigarettes and cancer.
The tactic didn't prevent anyone from getting cancer, but it did keep the tobacco industry profitable for decades after the Surgeon General's declaration.
Only this time the consequences aren't the lives of a few hundred thousand smokers, but rather the ability of humanity to continue to live on this Earth.
Gettinb on board with other countries is less important than merely accepting the urgency of the issue and taking action. Cooperative action with the international community would be best, but any action to reduce the carbon footprint of the world's biggest consumer/biggest polluter is what really matters.
What we should do and what we will do, as long as the "decider" is around, are likely to be two different things....and - beyond the next election - who knows?
In my opinion, we are in a situation where we have no real ability to change the global warming thing without destroying our world's economy in the process, unless we get some help from mother nature. Nature may reverse this trend in spite of greenhouse gasses and scientific forecasters of doom but unless that happens, we'd better look at preparedness and survival because the efforts we make are generally too little and too late!
This is a common misconception. There is actually a LOT we can do with only positive economic impact. To start with, just replacing incandescent light bulbs will save a huge amount of oil imports and greenhouse gases. Replacing gas-hog SUV's with more efficient vehicles will also help, but that is a long-term thing. People who just bought a new Hummer or Escalade or Excursion cannot afford to trade it in immediately. Still, over time, just buying more efficient vehicles will help, and will save the buyer a lot of money, especially as gas prices escalate.
Insulating and weatherstripping our homes, limiting driving as much as possible, jeez, there are a thousand ways to conserve energy that will not cripple the economy, and will in fact save money for cash-strapped families.
Every time I hear Bush or one of his cronies say that cutting our energy consumption will "cripple our economy" or something similar, I just want to vomit. It's such garbage!
I agree with you that redoing our economy to depend on conservation and renewables will not cripple it if done rationally. Waiting for oil prices to shoot up to $5 a gallon however, yeah, that is a sure fire recipe for crippling our economy. Overnight.
I've changed out my light bulbs for fluorescent and drive as good of fuel economy vehicles as I can afford. But if anyone thinks this will have a noticeable effect on global warming, I want to talk with them about some stock I have on a great bridge! I'm all in favor of doing what we can but to say it's going to work is a leap of faith greater than the tooth fairy!
What we need to do is be prepared for the coming changes and adaptations we must make, if we are to survive it with some degree of effectiveness. The most that changing out bulbs really accomplishes is, I don't have to change bulbs so often. I haven't actually seen a change in a power bill since I did it.
However, for those with a Pollyanna bent, this effort allows them to think that they are really doing something. To make a significant difference in greenhouse emissions we need to shut down most shipping, not drive a personal car to work, get rid of the Hummers and SUV's and replace them with Prius or similar. Eliminate a great deal of manufacturing.. Start massive installation of wind farms and do it without all the vehicles usually used in construction. All countries would need to live on what they could grow and eschew imports requiring shipping.
Ultimately, this kind of effort would bring our economy to a standstill, and that would have it's own repercussions. Nope, we need to be prepared to deal with the worst. Even if we did take drastic steps, how could we insure that all other countries would do the same?
Ever hear of locking the barn door after the horse had escaped, Bert? That's where we are in this thing now!
I firmly believe we need to do as much as we can within reason, as the consequences of this, if we don't get a helping hand from nature, will impact our kids and our great grand kids, and we owe them that we must try.
There are about as may opinions on this subject as their are people to discuss them and none of us has the information we need to make the correct decision. Some people won't accept that global warming is occurring. I believe the evidence negates that stance. Others think that a few changes here and there will turn the tide! Love the optimism and think, dream on! That is as unrealistic as the idea that there is no global warming.
Just look at the figures on the amount of greenhouse gasses produced in the US and other countries and how much it has increased in the last hundred years. Then tell me that changing light bulbs and other simple measures will suffice! And do it with a straight face, if you can.
Chris is right, we need action and it better be extreme action if this is going to be slowed significantly, which is the best we can hope for. However, some of the live with it needs would include moving to higher ground as sea levels rise. This needs to be prepared for as it will happen fairly soon if the trend continues.
I agree with most of what both of you say. I am not saying we can solve the world's GHG problems with a few CFL's. But I also think that standing around wringing our hands and saying nothing can be done because it will wreck the world's economies is wrong.
A journey begins with the first step. Let's do the easy stuff first. We haven't even started to do that.
I disagree that changing to CFL's will have a negligible effect. Here are some numbers:
Changing 5 lightbulbs in every American home to CFL's will reduce GFG emissions by 1 trillion pounds over the life of the bulbs (5-8 years).
Okay, what does that mean? Annual GHG emissions from electricity generation for the latest year I can find (2004) were about 2 BMT (billion metric tons). A trillion pounds is 0.5 BMT. Spreading that over five years gives a 5% reduction in GHG just from that one change. Not huge, but not insignificant either. Add that to all the other things I mentioned, and according to the DOE, a 25% to 35% reduction is possible.
Yes, of course, we need to do more, especially with alternative nonpolluting energy sources, but that is expensive and takes a long time to bring on line. Meanwhile, let's do what we can. That's all I am saying.
You are both right that we are very late starting to take corrective measures, and a lot of serious effects are going to happen whatever we do. But I think it is important to get the American people thinking about the problem, and not just throwing up their hands and saying nothing can be done...which is what the Bush people and the big energy producers...and energy consumers...are doing.
And I also agree that there's no reason to think the economy has to fall apart in order to make a dent in reversing climate change. I've recently read a couple of books -- Natural Capitalism and Cradle to Cradle, and they offer a much more optimistic view of a greener future. And they give lots of real-world examples of how it's already starting to happen.
That's right. American business is starting to realize that there's gold in global warming. There's a lot of money to be made in pursuing alternate energy sources, conservation and sequestration of carbon. That's why a whole bunch of big corporations have broken away from Bush's party line on this. I am finally starting to see a few glimmerings of hope.
But while they are getting the big guns loaded, we need to use our millions of pea shooters to attack the problem.
I still say we should do, at the current time, whatever we can without destroying our economy. not because I believe it is going to be significant, but because the problem needs to be addressed now, not fifty years down the road. But we still need some help from mother nature!
When the current energy companies figure a way that they can control and profit from alternative sources just as they have with oil, you will see much more innovation.
Damn right there is! And not just in dealing with global warming. There's a lot of money to be made from totally rebuilding modern society into one that doesn't pollute and poison the planet.
How much wealth has been generated since the beginnings of the industrial revolution that involved polluting the planet? I think it would be nice to make money not only healing that damage and eliminating future damage, but actually coming up with ways that people can live better, healthier, happier lives and create a better, healthier planet at the same time.
"Environmentalists can see us going back to subsistence farming and all organic foods. They fail to tell how the rest of the world is going to eat since organic does not produce as well."
Not all environmentalists have those kinds of views. Going back isn't the answer. We've got to go forward. And there are people coming up with ways we can do that in better, more sustainable ways. And in many cases, they're coming up with stuff that can be done now, not in 50 years time. I think that's pretty smart.
I agree that not all environmentalists have extreme views. But the Greenpeace variety seem to. These are the ones to match oil burner Bush's extremism. We do need to go forward and start making changes immediately. If we are going to accomplish anything with GHG then it needs to be done before any fifty years has elapsed.
We don't have to go to subsistence or even to all organic farming to improve things.
I totally agree. And I think for most people, making those changes is going to be dependent on how easy it is for them to do so.
"We don't have to go to subsistence or even to all organic farming to improve things."
I agree with this, too. Organic certainly isn't the end-all-and-be-all. When done on an industrial scale, it may not even be any better than non-organic industrial farmers. I think in those cases it's more about marketing than anything else.
Another book I read recently, The Omnivore's Dilemma, talks a lot about industrial farming, as well as organic farming and even "beyond organic" farming as practiced on farms like Polyface Farms in Virginia.
However we do it, at the end of the day we need to be able to adequately feed everybody on the planet in a sustainable way.
Ten unsolicited points from the world's worst connection. Merry whatever you celebrate!
----------------------
LAST DAY to Vote. Please drop by to read and rate Coyotes Remember. Thanks!