|
 stablishment-press
reporting of Kyoto "global warming" treaty negotiations
would embarrass even Bill Murray's character in the movie Groundhog
Day. They laughably trumpet the same nonachievement, conference
after conference. Consider last week's front-page, above-the-fold
Washington Post story, the introductory paragraph to which read,
"[M]ore than 160 countries, including Great Britain, Japan
and Russia, reached agreement late last night on a groundbreaking
climate control treaty setting mandatory targets for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions" ("160 Nations Agree to Warming Pact,"
November 10, 2001).
Such promotion is absurd given what actually transpired. And of
course, it also followed some now also obligatory disparaging of
the U.S. stance in the talks at issue, in this case the "Seventh
Session of the Conference of the Parties," COP-7, in Marrakesh.
Does all of this sound familiar?
Consider these
headlines: "Historic Global Warming Pact Reached" (Associated
Press, December 11, 1997, on the original Kyoto session) and "Nations
Reach Landmark Global Warming Pact" (St. Louis Post-Dispatch,
December 11, 1997); or this summer's "World Agrees on Climate
Pact" (Chicago Tribune, July 24, 2001, on COP-6) and "Nations
reach a climate accord" (New York Times, July 25, 2001).
Sounds like it might be time to stop agreeing and start ratifying.
Yet only one covered country has chosen to submit ratification lo
these four years. That is Romania, in a clear move to kiss up to
the EU it desperately seeks to join. The trouble is that no nation
can yet be sure of what it would be getting itself into; they're
merely seeing a lot of troubling hints. These propagandistic headlines
are therefore pure fiction. Any supposed "agreement" is
in truth far from that: specifics remain undrafted, let alone agreed
upon, even before individual countries must ratify them.
This one Post
lead provides more factual errors, masquerading as editorial bias,
than any news story should reasonably contain in its entirety. Consider
the subhead's derogation, "U.S. Was on Sidelines in Morocco
Talks." This, regrettably, is not true. Though claiming it
will not be bound by the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. nonetheless refuses
to rescind its valid signature on the document — signaling,
at best, continued engagement and a plea for less oppressive terms.
At worst, it indicates that ratification may remain a possibility.
The U.S. sent
a full delegation to Marrakesh, participated in key discussions,
and, as anyone making even one inquiry would know, advocated longstanding
negotiating positions through allied delegations. For example (and
environmentalist groups fumed about this throughout the conference,
even if it doesn't suit the reporting tastes of the Post), Canadian
delegates promoted U.S. ideas for a "clean development mechanism"
whereby covered countries receive some credit for energy projects
developed overseas.
Further, even proponents of Kyoto assert that assuming their hypothesis
of man's impact on the climate is true, this agreement — if
fully and perfectly implemented — would affect temperatures
so slightly as not to be measurable (estimated at a six-year delay
of a three-one-hundredths of a degree increase). Would such a deal
represent, to any reasonable mind, "climate control"?
Or does it merely signify a desperately-sought affirmation of the
belief — long advocated, through theories running the gamut
from a "man-made ice age" to global warming — that
too many people exist who are "killing the planet"?
Regardless,
the Post and other establishment press seem to advocate — or
fall for — the routine charade of "groundbreaking agreement."
Anyone attending these conferences knows that whatever olio can
be cobbled at the eleventh hour is hailed as a groundbreaking achievement
closing the deal, etc., details to be hammered out later. Year in
and year out, one negotiating session follows another. One "climate
agreement" is reported after another, though all that's accomplished
is a slight narrowing of terms. Given the actual treaty language's
persistent vagaries, any implementable, enforceable "agreement"
remains far off.
In truth, the
Kyoto Protocol set forth broad language binding 38 countries to
reduce particular "greenhouse gas" (GHG) emissions, by
differing percentages each, by dates certain. It called for emission-credit-trading
regimes to enable this even though, rhetoric notwithstanding, these
remain undefined. It called for international economic sanctions,
which are still unstated. So far, all they've agreed to for cases
of noncompliance is a more restrictive emission level for the promised,
and as-yet-unagreed-upon, "next compliance period." The
key question — "Or what?" — now highlights the
folly of this anti-growth measure.
Negotiations
in The Hague in November 2000 made clear that either our negotiating
partners in bad faith sought to change the terms of the agreement
in mid-course — or there never was agreement.
There, our
European allies insisted that when, for instance, Protocol Article
3 says GHG sinks "shall be used to meet the commitments under
this article" ("sinks" are forestry and land-management
practices sucking greenhouse gases from the atmosphere), they meant,
"but not very much."
The U.S. clearly
intended "to the extent we are able to reduce GHGs through
that method." No EU flexibility, given that this would mitigate
U.S. pain — therefore, no deal. We "dropped out."
And most of such questions remain unanswered.
As still-scarce
details take form, Kyoto is increasingly obviously designed to fail
(the particular charade of such dysfunction requiring another essay
entirely). Greens and their cheerleaders might find a more appropriate
announcement in Chevy Chase's classic Saturday Night Live offering:
"This just in, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still valiantly
holding on in his fight to remain dead."
|
