Europe’s Cold Shoulder
European governments have already committed themselves to the foregone conclusion of perilous climate change.

By Kendra Okonski of the International Policy Network in London
June 14, 2001 9:25 a.m.

spectre is haunting Europe," began Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto in 1848. This week, in a similarly eerie tone, European politicians and environmental groups are trying to convince the world that global warming is imperiling our planet. They want to embarrass Bush for having dismissed the doomsayers.

In March, President Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol, a 180-nation agreement based on the premises that global temperatures are increasing, that such warming is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, that this temperature increase threatens the survival of the Earth's fragile ecosystems, that small reductions in emissions will reduce the impact, and finally, that allowing energy tsars based in Bonn, Germany to control energy policy is the ideal solution. If ratified, the Kyoto Protocol would require the 38 richest countries to undertake drastic actions to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions — mostly by scaling back the use of carbon-based energy.

But a report released last week by the National Academy of Sciences shows that "there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them," according to NAS panel member Dr. Richard Lindzen, quoted in the Wall Street Journal this week. Before his departure to Europe, Bush confirmed that any action taken by the United States in reaction to global temperature change will be science-based, rather than hysteria-based — if a problem even exists at all.

If we were to listen to Europe's energy Cassandras and implement the Kyoto protocol, any reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions would simply be offset by an increase in poor countries' emissions. The cost in terms of reduced economic output will mean reduced consumption everywhere — leading to global impoverishment, unemployment, and misery.

However, European governments have already committed themselves to the foregone conclusion of perilous climate change and, consequently, the need for international action, i.e., the Kyoto Protocol. Backing down now would open these statesmen up to ridicule.

European politicians and journalists have lambasted Bush since March, alleging that the U.S. — as the world's wealthiest economy and society — "owes" it to the world to stop being so darned productive. In the face of Bush's call for science-based regulation, European Union (EU) Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstroem released a report on climate change and Europe's implementation of Kyoto. "We cannot rely on voluntary agreements," she said. "The strength of Kyoto was that you could have deadlines and targets for countries."

So far, President Bush has received a very lukewarm welcome from European citizens. Spanish citizens took to the streets on Sunday and Monday, outraged about the U.S. death penalty because of a recent high-profile Florida case where a Spanish citizen was acquitted of a double murder. A Spanish feminist carried a sign saying "What misfortune that the mother of Bush could not abort."

The ever-present environmental scare-group Greenpeace has been typically active this week, alleging that Bush's rejection of Kyoto spells certain doom (but perhaps they are only scared that their revenues will fall once it is revealed that the emperor has no clothes).

On Sunday, the multinational environmental group boarded an oil tanker off the coast of France, intending to prevent it from delivering a shipment of Norwegian oil to the U.S. On Monday, they claimed victory, having derailed the tanker from its journey. Greenpeace campaigner Truls Gulowsen explains, "Though it is a first small step towards safeguarding the Earth´s climate, the Kyoto protocol which has been formulated over ten years, is the ONLY global legal instrument available to start tackling the problem. Oil exports to the U.S. will only lead to continued unregulated CO2 emissions by a country that is trying to destroy the Kyoto Protocol."

Just in case people couldn't grasp the subtlety of its message, Greenpeace hung assorted banners and slogans off the tanker: "Bush + Esso + Chevron + Conoco = Climate Killer," and "STOP OIL TO BUSH — RATIFY KYOTO."

Over the past few weeks, Greenpeace has engaged in a massive attempt to get consumers to boycott Exxon-Esso in Europe. Exxon is one of the few oil companies that has refused to equate its product with the impending destruction of our planet. British Petroleum and Shell, meanwhile, have been made out as the moral equivalent of drug dealers for selling carbon-based energy. They ultimately sold out to Greenpeace by undertaking new investments in so-called "renewable" energy — but time will tell whether their shareholders feel that renewable energy is such a wise investment. According to Greenpeace, Bush is simply a mouthpiece for "big oil" — anyone who would question Greenpeace's policies must have been paid to do so.

When he addressed NATO leaders in Brussels, Bush faced allegations by protesters accusing him of "crimes against humanity and the planet" for rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. Greenpeace, Oxfam, Attac, and other NGOs demanded that he respect international agreements. A group called "For Mother Earth" called for his immediate arrest. And American ex-pats used the opportunity to empathize with their European counterparts: "Dear Europe, We didn't vote for him either! Love, America" read one sign. "Help! My president is a moron," read another.

And so, it will surprise no one that anti-globalization (pro-nihilism) activists will also extend their cold welcome to President Bush when he arrives to meet leaders of the European Union in Gothenburg, Sweden.

The leaders will probably sanction the protests, but President Bush shouldn't worry: He made the right decision for the rest of the world.