Last week, a U.N. climate conference concluded with the Bush Administration maintaining opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. As a concession, the administration consented to exploring new discussions, but under a loophole that renders talks 'open and nonbinding' and void of 'any negotiations leading to new commitments.' Meanwhile, the globe warmed up as the United States pumped out the highest levels of greenhouse gases in the world.
As their primary defense, the administration rationalized that a drastic change in emissions would damage the economy. In the presence of an international audience, former President Bill Clinton countered that this contention proved 'dead wrong' and that with a 'serious and disciplined effort' to develop energy-efficient technology, 'We could meet and surpass the Kyoto targets in a way that would strengthen and not weaken our economies.'
As recently industrialized nations such as China and India demonstrate, increased carbon dioxide emission coincides with economic growth. Thus, strict emissions restrictions involve great initial economic sacrifice. However short-term economic damage would create urgency for the development of energy efficient and renewable sources of energy.
Ultimately, a costly investment in the environment today would bolster our economy in the future. Once the technology exists, the bureaucratic processes of determining emissions quotas, economic costs and enforcement mechanisms would disappear as nations adopted the new technology.
The fatal flaw of Kyoto exists in the lack of a 'step 2' for decreasing global warming. Many environmentalists concur that emissions reductions, even if rolled back to pre-1990 levels as Kyoto calls for, will not sufficiently curb global warming. This reinforces the need to invest heavily in energy technology.
With Bush's glittering history of taking economic hits for the security of the nation in the face of perceived threats, it seems that protection from Mother Nature would rank high on his list of priorities. Yet, after investing $225 billion for a perceived national security threat that proved non-existent (weapons of mass destruction), the commander-in-chief still fails to effectively tackle the mother threat: Mother Nature.
To demonstrate environmental consciousness, administration officials point to a supposedly sufficient budget of $3 billion dedicated toward technology and research of new energy solutions. Still, our 'voluntary' action may prove useless if the scientific communities of other nations do not take the same initiative. Thus, cooperation with other nations proves vital.
The administration should demonstrate a commitment to reducing global warming and enter in Kyoto negotiations. Reducing emissions will have economic implications in the short-term, but developing and switching to energy efficient technology will strengthen the economy in the long run.
Of all the flora and fauna inhabiting this earth, no bush, not even President Bush, will have the capacity to withstand the environmental and economic damage that will result if decisive action toward global warming reduction never materializes.
UW-Madison professor Jonathan Patz, lead author of a recent report on global warming published in the journal Nature, said in a statement, 'The political resolve of policy-makers will play a big role in harnessing the man-made forces of climate change.' Indeed, our policy makers need to accept the responsibility of negotiating the Kyoto Protocol without loopholes and without excuses.
