US isolation on climate change

Two major events have taken place in the field of global climate change during the last one week. The first is the submission of a report by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to the US President, dealing the assessment of the extent and nature of climate change that is taking place globally. The NAS had been requested by President George W. Bush to investigate the science of climate change and provide an assessment of what needs to be done. The major focus of the NAS assessment was to look at the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), particularly as it relates to the Third Assessment Report of that body covering all the significant aspects of climate change. The IPCC is not a policy-making or policy recommending body, and actually goes through a great deal of care in ensuring that its reports do not carry any recommendation of policies whatsoever, even thought they must, as far as possible, be policy relevant. Hence, the report of the NAS can be seen as a useful extension of the work of the IPCC. The NAS was provided only one month to submit its findings to President George W. Bush, and this deadline was met when the report was submitted to the President on the 6th of June. The NAS study confirms the major findings of the IPCC and states that "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in earth?s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise," the report said. "Temperatures are, in fact, rising." The urgency that President Bush attached to the evaluation by the NAS was occasioned by extensive criticism of his rejection of the Kyoto Protocol earlier this year and the likely disagreements that he expects in Europe where he is visiting currently. The sixth Conference of the Parties (CoP) to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) had to be suspended in Bonn last November largely because of the US not agreeing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and the various measures that had been agreed to by the other major parties to the Convention. In actual fact, the Bonn conference of the parties saw a sharp division in the positions of Europe versus the US. Subsequently, after George W. Bush?s rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, most European leaders have been further upset with the US position, and several of them have expressed in no uncertain terms very strong disapproval of the US stance. Clearly the US stands isolated. The NAS report has obviously created a further problem for President Bush, because while it has questioned some aspects of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), in general it builds on the TAR in suggesting action to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) which cause climate change through increased concentration of these gases in the earth?s atmosphere. Understandably, therefore, the US administration has made some attempts at damage control, and perhaps reducing the danger of heat that President Bush would get during his visit to Europe and discussions with European leaders. The first part of this damage control included a briefing by Ms Condoleezza Rice, the President?s national security adviser, who stated "This is a president who takes extremely seriously what we do know about climate change, which is essentially that there is warming taking place". The main thrust of Ms Rice?s efforts has been to claim that the President and his senior colleagues in the administration have shown deep commitment to this issue by learning about the problem and then coming up with solutions. Ms Rice stated "I would dare say ? dare challenge you to find a situation in which you?ve had so many high-ranking people sitting there week after week after week, understanding the challenge that we face in global climate change, everybody from the vice president, the secretary of state, the secretary of interior, secretary of agriculture. It has been quite something to see all of these people grappling with the issue". Despite the very clear and unambiguous findings of the NAS, President Bush is still not committed to actions that would immediately reduce the emissions of GHGs by the US. On June 11 he made a statement on climate change which falls far short of commitment to specific action that could help turn things around. The developing world has reason to feel deeply concerned and discriminated against if the statement of the US President is to be seen as the basis of action (or in fact inaction) in the coming months and years. The US President has ignored two major realities in stating his stand. Firstly, he claims that the US accounts for 20% of the world?s man-made greenhouse emissions but also accounts for one-quarter of the world?s economic output. He, therefore, ignores the fact that other major economic powers of the world have achieved high-level of economic growth with much lower energy efficiency, and, therefore, much lower intensity of greenhouse emissions. Japan and France are two examples of this reality. The second point in his speech which should cause a great deal of concern, consternation and condemnation in the developing world is the fact that he highlights the developing countries being exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol as some kind of a major flaw in the Protocol. The fact that developing countries have been exempted is because the FCCC clearly lays down the principle of common but differentiated responsibility for taking action. Climate change is not caused by emissions taking place today but by the concentration of GHGs in the earth?s atmosphere, which have accumulated historically over a period of more than a century and a half. Hence, it is countries that have contributed to increasing the concentration of gases which should have the primary responsibility for action to reduce emissions today. Yet, the US continues to increase its emissions without regard to the intent clearly specified in the FCCC that the developed countries would reduce their emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The FCCC was signed when none other than the current President?s father the senior George Bush was president. Another issue that shows a highly inequitable stand on the part of the current US President is the difference in per capita emissions between his country and developing nations like China and India. Despite this he has complained that "Yet, India was also exempted from Kyoto". India?s exemption like that of other developing countries was based on the carefully developed principle of common but differentiated responsibility included in the FCCC and the reality of per capita emission levels that are 1/40th in some developing countries as compared, for instance, with those in the US. The past few months since the new US administration has been sending out signals against the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and a complete reluctance to limit emissions of GHGs have been a period of major dismay on the part of those who expect rapid action to reduce the emissions of GHGs worldwide. It is necessary for the major developing countries in the world, particularly China and India, to take the lead in rejecting the US position and the various statements made at the highest level of the US administration, which sadly reflect an unfortunate lack of knowledge on the subject and a total abdication of responsibility for action as the leading emitter of GHGs both in the aggregate and in per capita terms and as the society which has made the largest cumulative additions to the concentration of GHGs in the earth?s atmosphere. It is necessary that the polluter must pay principle apply at the global level just as is required at the local level. It is important for the developing countries, joined by some of the more ethical and fairness motivated members of the developed world to put pressure all round on the US administration. The movement started by some prominent artists and leaders of public opinion in Europe for boycotting the products of Exxon-Mobil, a company which is seen as a major supporter of George W. Bush?s disastrous climate change policy, is a good way to put economic pressure on the US. It would be most useful for a worldwide movement which boycotts American goods as a source of global pollution, and as the only means to bringing the US administration to a position of minimal fairness.