November 29, 2005
U.S. Defends Decision Not To Join Kyoto Protocol
Envoys from more than 180 nations Monday are holding talks in the Canadian city of Montreal on the Kyoto Protocol.
The 12-day gathering of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is expected to draw between 8,000 and 10,000 participants from government, business, science and green groups.
The United States instantaneously defended its decision not to sign the Kyoto Protocol on Monday, saying during the opening of a global summit on climate change that it is doing more than most countries to protect the earth's atmosphere.
AP reports Monday that Dr. Harlan L. Watson, senior climate negotiator for the State Department, said that President Bush takes global warming seriously and noted that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions had actually gone down by eight-tenths of a percent under Bush, even though he declined to join the treaty.
Watson also said the United States spends more than $5 billion a year on efforts to slow the deterioration of the earth's atmosphere by supporting climate change research and technology, and that Bush had committed to cutting greenhouses gases some 18 percent by 2012.
However, AP's report notes that Elizabeth May of the Sierra Club Canada accused the world's biggest polluter of trying to derail the Kyoto accord, saying "We have a lot of positive, constructive American engagement here in Montreal - and none of it's from the Bush administration, which represents the single biggest threat to global progress."
Although thel Conference is considered the most important gathering on global warming since Kyoto, Japanese newspaper, the Yomiuri, says that the conference would be " the difficult negotiations with contradiction and limit", since the United States, the world biggest polluter, hasn't changed its position.
Time Magazine ran an interesting article when President Bush pulled the US out of the Kyoto accords as one of the first acts of his presidency in 2001.
When it Comes to Kyoto, the U.S. is the "Rogue Nation"The rest of the world has decided to proceed with the Kyoto pact despite Washington's withdrawal. TIME.com's Tony Karon explains why that may be bad news for U.S. global leadership.
Posted 07:09 AM | Comments (0)
October 18, 2005
Hot Water over Water
Canadians are always sensitive to encroachment by the US (whether real or percieved), and that sentiment is manifesting itself in a new phenomenon - aqua-nationalism, an ideological commitment to preserving as much autonomy over Canadian water supplies as possible. In the context of global warming and population growth, as the North American climate shifts while demand continues to grow, there will be growing pressure on Canada to sell its water to thirsty American cities, a number of which, due to poor planning, have been constructed in the middle of deserts. The Walrus, a serious Canadian intellectual magazine, devotes its October issue to examining aqua-nationalism and the thorny issue of managing and sharing water supplies, supplies that have the pesky habit of criss-crossing borders with no regard to national sovereignty. The article manages to capture Canadian axiety on the issue, anxiety that's not entirely unfounded (there was pressure to include fresh water as a tradeable good under NAFTA), but it goes on to argue that some kind of cross-border managemant will be inevitable, as larger and larger scale projects become necessary to supply North American communities and ecosystems with enough water to survive, while diverting water from areas newly-flood prone. Can Canadians overcome their aqua-nationalism? Do Americans know how to simultaneously cajole and reassure thier neighbors? Much may be riding on the answers to these questions.
Posted 12:45 AM | Comments (0)
September 22, 2005
Global warming: a British perspective
“Global warming is the most severe threat we face…more serious than terrorism” declared Sir David King a year or so ago. Sir David is the Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government and his declaration caused some sensation in Downing Street, in London, and in other parts of the world as one can easily imagine.
“I am happy to repeat that statement” said Sir David in Berkeley where he was invited by the Journalism School, on September 16th, to give a talk on the subject.
Katrina was the subject of some of the first questions asked by Michael Pollan and Sandy Tolan who hosted the event.
For Sir David, “Katrina is a potential tipping point of our attitudes towards natural disasters.” One has to be careful though: “It is not directly related to global warming but it is an example of disasters that might come. We do know that the intensity of hurricanes depends on ocean temperature. There is a little bit of a warning here.”
Asked about American media tendency to say that human impact on global warming is not clear, Sir David answered: “I’m amazed at the power of paid lobbyists in this country.”
Some mistakes are made, he admitted, and scientists ought to challenge each other, but “The science of climate change is mature. We know there is global warming. We know what causes it. What we don’t know is the impact it is going to have country by country.”
“There is room to say we need more science,” added Sir David. But we must anticipate that coastal cities will come under increasing risks. They will be higher in the developing world.” World wide more than a 100 million people are threatened.
The British government is taking the issue seriously. Five years ago it allocated 200 millions pounds to protect its coastal population. The budget has already risen to half a billion.
Richer countries have to give the proper example, act as leaders. “I would very much like to see the US take this leadership role,” he added.
Some people in the U.S. argue that controlling carbon dioxide emissions would slow growth. The British case seems to prove the opposite: “The UK could decrease its emissions in 12% while seeing its GDP grow 38%. It can be done,” said Sir King.
One of the issues addressed by Sir David during his talk is the difficulty to grab the attention of politicians on such issues as global warming. It’s much easier with terrorism of course. And still, Prime Ministers and heads of industries have families “they have genetic worries about their children.” Is the specie at risk? “Our DNA will survive, maybe in a different form,” said Sir David with a strange kind of a smile.
[Picture found on Greenpeace.org.uk]
Posted 09:51 AM | Comments (0)