Many believe Bush trying to split the G-8 on global warming

Share your Thoughts
Posted on June 2, 2007
Filed Under Global warming/Climate change, Greenhouse gas emissions

Fostering Ecologica Hope
Today from Margaret Swedish:

As we wrote yesterday, we didn’t think it would take long for skepticism to mount around President Bush’s proposal to gather the major carbon emitters to discuss ‘aspirational goals’ to cut emissions of dangerous greenhouse gases somewhere out there in the future. It is pretty clear what the game is here.

The NY Times reports the concerns among many Europeans that Bush is trying to undermine their years-long efforts to reach agreement on emission reductions, and the work of the United Nations. It’s no secret that the Bush administration does not want to see the global climate crisis addressed under the mandate of the UN. That would complicate things a lot for the world’s biggest carbon emitter (the US, with 4% of the population contributes 25% of human-caused carbon to the ever-warming atmosphere). All kinds of international obligations could kick in, along with a good dose of international isolation and moral indignation.

The Times article reports that Bush’s surprise announcement has caused more frustration across the ocean. The Financial Times report is even stronger, saying that Bush appears to suggest “a parallel process to the UN, by which the world’s 15 biggest emitters of greenhouse gases would within 18 months ‘establish a new framework on greenhouse gases when the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012′ and ’set a long-term global goal on reducing emissions’”.

That UN process is the one in which this administration has refused to be a responsible partner.

Actually, the more one thinks about it, the more arrogant and unilateralist the US proposal appears to be. Think of all the years of negotiations on this troublesome issue that just won’t go away, all the resistance to changes that would necessarily affect the economies of rich and soon-to-be-rich countries, those that have benefitted from all this spewing of pollutants into our precious atmosphere.

The US has remained outside this process since the first inauguration of George Bush in 2001 (President Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, but the Republican Congress did not ratify it, and then Bush rejected it). Without the world’s worst polluter participating, it is unlikely that concerted action will be taken by others.

So now, just as the G-8 is about to meet and, under the leadership of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, consider her proposal to cut emissions to 50% below 1990 levels by 2050, and in the wake of the alarming reports of the UN’s Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change released this year, Bush issues his surprise announcement. According to the FT, many now fear that the true intent is to split the G-8 and sabotage any hopes for progress at its summit next week.

There were signs on Friday night that Mr Bush’s proposals would split the G8, which some sceptics argue is his intention. Stephen Harper, Canada’s prime minister, welcomed the plans, as did Tony Blair, Britain’s outgoing prime minister, and Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister.

Professional diplomats and enlightened world leaders must just shake their heads in wonder.

I have no doubt that all of this is about putting off as long as possible an international agreement for mandatory, enforceable cuts in carbon emissions, the only thing that will work, unfortunately, because those that control and benefit from business-as-usual are not going to change their behavior if it hits the bottom line — certainly not for the mere altruistic reason of saving the atmosphere of the planet for human habitation.

I wish it were not so.

The moral indignation one feels in such a moment is profound. The world cooks, and we waste time — and we waste time through suspect and possibly intentionally devious and divisive tactics. And where is the response from ‘my people?’ Why aren’t we angrier about this, or at least embarrassed by our leaders? Why don’t we care? Is it because we know deep down inside that dealing with global warming really does mean that ‘my’ life will have to change? Are we accurately represented by the Bush administration? Is that the problem?

—————————-

P.S. The Times also has a good editorial on the “remakarbly uninformed” comments of NASA administrator Michael Griffin regarding global warming, upon which we commented yesterday. You can read it here.


Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

Leave a Reply