|
|
|
Strategy
to Fight Global Warming Stupidly Simplistic Preparing for renewed international negotiations on cutting levels of heat-trapping gases that may be warming the climate, the United States is proposing that countries get just as much credit for using forests and farmers' fields to sop up carbon dioxide, the chief warming gas, as they would for cutting emissions from smokestacks and tail pipes. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the huge problem of global warming will be dealt with in the same way all environmental issues and `external costs' that impact on the global economy and the middle-class lifestyle that underpins it have been dealt with since 1970, PR, spin, outright lies and minimal action. Science is being used like statistics, for support rather than illumination. Scientists have known for decades that trees and other plants absorb carbon dioxide as they grow and some soils do as well. In theory, pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere would allow countries to emit some heat-trapping, or greenhouse, gases without adding to the overall problem. Accordingly the US Clinton administration officials and some scientists have been saying that incentives to plant trees and to farm in ways that lock away carbon were essential for stabilizing the climate. In addition, they say, bringing farmers and foresters into the battle is likely to be crucial if the Senate, which has so far firmly opposed ratifying any international climate treaty, is to change its view. Anyone who sits outside the glass-towers and neo-classical stone edifices of government would see that the burning of coal and oil (mainly as petrol) is by far the major contributor to CO2 emissions, which caused most of the carbon dioxide buildup in the first place. Objectivity forces us to point to uncertainties about how long plants and soils could continue to absorb carbon. Support for so-called `environmentalists' comes from the European Union which, given its relative lack of open land for tree-planting, would be at a disadvantage. The US State Department laid out the United States' approach in documents filed with a United Nations office that is overseeing talks aimed at carrying out the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement aimed at averting any dangerous climate warming. Thirty- eight other industrialized countries were scheduled to file their proposals this week, as well. The Kyoto agreement has been signed by the United States and more than 100 other countries but has not yet been ratified, and many details remain to be ironed out, with two rounds of negotiations coming in September and again in November. The Australian Government is infamous for its claims to be able to increase CO2 emissions when every other country proclaims a decrease in their own emissions. If the agreement is ratified, the United States would commit itself to cutting its emissions of carbon dioxide by 2010 to 7 percent below the emissions in 1990. Given the growth in the economy and fuel use since 1990, administration officials say, the only way to come anywhere near that target is by adopting every possible strategy, including the agricultural approach. The bland and unquestioned assumption that growth is a given is the shadow that darkens the bright promise of a global economy. If something relies on continuous growth, it must eventually disintegrate. Nothing is unlimited, especially growth. How can so-called intelligent rational people not see this and seek to cover it up? One can only surmise money is the leader and consciousness of life the slave. Michael Oppenheimer, chief scientist of Environmental Defense, a private group, said that whatever program finally emerges in the next rounds of talks, it must not allow any country to get too much credit for things it is already doing, like, for example, planting trees on land that was clearcut several years ago. "Done well, credit for forests and farming could help jumpstart a solution to the global warming problem," Dr. Oppenheimer said. "Done poorly, it could undermine the credibility of the whole Kyoto agreement." David B. Sandalow, the assistant secretary of state for oceans and environmental affairs, said the United States would not want any final climate plan to permit loopholes allowing clearcutting or other bad land practices to get credit. But, taking a position at odds with some environmental groups, he added that the country's position would be to try to get credit for most of the carbon dioxide being absorbed by the country's trees and crops -- about 300 million metric tons a year is the projection for that tally by 2010. That compares to the projected total emissions of more than 2.1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide a year from industry, cars and other sources if current energy trends continue, he said. He added that keeping some focus on farming and trees would keep the cost of fighting global warming down. Estimates are that it will be much cheaper for a country to absorb pollution than to reduce the output of these gases. "We need strong incentives for parties to adopt practices that protect the atmosphere at low cost," Mr. Sandalow said last night. Canada, Russia, Australia and other countries with lots of forests and farming are all tending to align with the American position. Also, according to several Japanese news services, Japan last night submitted similar plans, anticipating a large role for tree planting. Its focus is probably not so much on current events but on an anticipated round of talks extending actions on global warming to the third world, where Japan and other rich countries could get credit for investing in forest projects. PlaNet and many other environmental groups are vigorously opposing this approach. Jennifer Morgan, the director of the climate change campaign at the World Wildlife Fund said that forests and soils are, at best, a temporary storehouse for carbon, and one that can be broken open by later changes in practices or by unforseen forces like wildfire, droughts, or insect infestations -- all of which could abruptly unlock millions of tons of banked carbon. "Soil can be a great absorber of carbon, but if you plow too deeply two years in a row you can release it all back into the air," she said. "We need to find the most secure way of reaching these goals, and that is to focus on cutting emissions from things like power plants." Last night, a White House official said that some environmental groups -- historically focused on cleaning pollution -- were being too inflexible on the issue. "Carbon is carbon, right?" said the official. To which the average country walker can only reply in amazement, a forest is a forest, right? Wrong. Trees, forests and the organisms in them are highly diverse, and it is the diveristy of Nature that is its strength. A strength quite invisible to the accountant buried deep in the bowels of a glass-tower.. .rs and posters with messages that demand jobs and an end to poverty. These foot-soldiers are mobilisi
|
