Surprised that nobody has picked up on this story, yet, courtesy of Reuters.
It suggests that, instead of addressing the issue of CO2 emissions, the US Government is going to propose a new deal on ozone, basically speeding up the process of cutting HCFCs.
Apparently, the claim is that this will have twice the impact compared to cutting CO2. Those sums would be interesting to read. The article continues:
Connaughton, who was touring EU capitals to prepare for the conference, said the United States could not accept a system for trading rights to emit carbon dioxide (CO2) like the one established by the European Union and allowed under Kyoto.
“The design of the global cap and trade system has proven to be horribly flawed,” he said.
“The whole structure does not contain the incentive system that cap and trade is intended to create.”
He said the Washington meeting would seek “nationally defined” strategies for fighting global warming, including binding and non-binding measures.
“We would like to find consensus on a long-term global goal for reducing emissions,” he said.
He said EU plans to add domestic and international airlines to its emissions trading scheme — opposed by the United States and other nations — would violate World Trade Organisation rules. “This battle is over before it begins,” he said.
So, this is the outlier for next month’s meeting: ‘We’re not going to do anything about CO2 emissions, whatever you say, and we’re not going to do anything about airlines. Instead, let’s propose something which will be a problem for China and not us…’
The logic of these ‘decisions’ is interesting, too: ‘We’re going to propose HCFC changes because it will reduce the greenhouse effect, but not CO2 regulation, because…er…’. Then there are those comments about cap and trade. ‘The existing system is flawed, so rather than work out a new system, we’ll abandon the idea altogether…’
Then there are the weasel words; ‘We would like to find a consensus on a long-term global goal…’ Well dur! What is the EU agreement if it is not a consensus (amongst EU nations), on a global goal’. But you can already see the sneak: ‘when we say say long-term global goal, we don’t mean a long-term goal for global emissions, we mean a long-term globally agreed goal on emissions…’
As per usual, this is not a discussion about what needs to be done, but a promise about what will avoid being done. Given that, without the participation of the USA, no policy or agreement will have a sufficient impact, this ends up feeling like the US government is saying ‘Screw you’ to the rest of the world. When the US electorate becomes sufficiently aware that this is what their government is saying to them, too, then maybe some pressure will be exerted to stop fighting this dangerous and destructive rearguard action to supposedly ‘protect the economy’ and some progress can be made.
There is a moral question involved here, too. If the US Govt. does not believe that emissions controls are necessary, why would it propose the HCFC step? If, on the other hand, it does understand the importance of emissions controls, then the decision to procrastinate is both deliberate and purely self-interested (the selfs in this case being the elected representatives and their friends) ; knowing the importance of controls implies that the Govt. also knows the likely impacts of climate change on large proportions of its population, but has chosen to do nothing about them; this, then, is another example of punishing the ‘ignorant electorate’ because the Govt. knows it can get away with it. Can anyone offer an explanation how this can, in any way, be morally justifiable?
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 17, 2007 at 6:36 pm
John Mashey
Your article is highly unfair 🙂
If you replaced USA by “Bush Government”, I would have no complaint.
But please, some of us live a long way from Washington, DC, and at least some of us live in states (like in here in California) that act like we have our own “foreign policy”, and it differs strongly from that above. I had some problems with the original Kyoto, but that just meant they needed to get fixed, not ignored.
Anyway, “Bush government” != USA.
September 17, 2007 at 7:51 pm
fergusbrown
Duly noted and corrected, John. 🙂
September 18, 2007 at 2:58 pm
bigcitylib
Fergus,
I’ve been wondering what to think of this. Do you believe that A) the goal is impossible because of Chinese objections, or B) won’t do any good re emissions even if it did go through, or C) both?
Arguments I have heard make the case that, because there is already a solid framework in place, some fairly significant cuts are doable here.
September 18, 2007 at 3:23 pm
fergusbrown
If the proposal was presented as an issue separate to dealing with CO2 emissions, I might have more confidence in its value. In the context in which it has been presented, though, this is meant to be an alternative to a CO2 decision. As such, even if it were to be done (I am sure that, in principle, it is doable) any short-term benefit would soon be overwhelmed by the longer-term and more pressing problem of the ever-rising CO2 count.
If previous responses are anything to go by, the Chinese might be persuaded to act if there is some kind of compensatory deal, but they are more likely to ask why the US, or anyone else, is making economic and industrial demands on them, when they are doing jack-sh$t themselves. it’s hard not to see their point of view, on this; it really does look like passing the buck, both in terms of taking responsibility to act, and paying the cost.
My response to this proposal to the USG’s representatives might be to say, ‘Fine, we’ll do that, (with a little support, please); what are you going to do in the meantime to solve the real problem, apart from promise to think about it?
The Bush government is not playing by fair international rules, here; it is making demands on others whilst avoiding any commitments itself; the ozone issue is not supposed to be the point of the upcoming meeting; what they intend to do is divert attention away from their inaction and redirect it onto agreeing on targets for a change which requires no effort or cost on their part. Would you buy the package if this was the deal being offered?