| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Economy |
| Gleneagles: a Kyoto deal for grown-ups? |
| 2005-06-19 |
| Blair never ceases to surprise me. If this article is correct then he appears to be aligning himself with the Bush administrations position on energy. The way to reduce carbon emissions is to reduce oil dependence. A position even I a long time Kyoto critic would support. SHARKS were not on Sir Bob Geldolf's radar when he invited the world to Scotland for the G8 summit. But they are swimming north anyway, we learnt last week, as refugees from the global warming which makes England's water too hot. The 65% increase in Scottish sightings of basking sharks was taken to prove a key G8 theme: that climate change is real, nature is already being contorted and we're all slowly heading to a watery Armageddon. At the G8 summit next month, Tony Blair will act. But, to his credit, the 'Gleneagles Declaration' he is putting together on climate change is shaping up to be a sensible response to a complex situation. It could well be a Kyoto for grown-ups. Since world leaders signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the debate around climate change has taken enormous strides, producing both heat and light, but very little consensus. The experts agree on a few key facts. In the last million years, the Earth has been through seven glacial cycles, the last of which - named the Holocene - began 10,000 years ago. We are living in it still. Between 900AD and 1100AD, the planet was warmer than today - then chilled during the 'little ice age' from 1400 to 1900. In the century just passed, the world has grown about 0.6°C hotter - the sharpest rise for a millennium. Sea levels rose between 10cm and 25cm over the last century (civilisation somehow coped) and estimates for the next range from 9cm to 80cm - a lot more, but hardly enough to submerge Big Ben. So how much of this is due to man? Most of it, argue most Kyoto signatories: it's time for each country to cut back its emission of greenhouse gases, and if this means slower economic growth, then so be it. George W Bush's administration emphatically disagrees, describing Kyoto as "flawed logic" and a recipe for destroying jobs. Soon after his election, the President tore up Kyoto - saying the science was not right. There are now thousands of facts backing up either side, but one political constant remains. Climate change is a politically-charged cause, close to the heart of anyone who dislikes free markets or the United States of America. There is, however, another America which confounds this stereotype. President Bush has pledged to reduce US greenhouse gas intensities by 18% within 10 years - a tougher target than Kyoto-signing Britain, which has set a target of 12%. Bush's White House is pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 500 tonnes over a decade - a bigger saving than the rest of Europe put together, albeit a smaller one than Kyoto's signatories envisaged. Where America comes into its own is spending. The US federal government is devoting $3bn each year to climate change technology, and this is where Blair comes in. His Gleneagles Declaration acknowledges that America will never sign Kyoto - but that it is playing every bit as valid a part in the climate change battle by scientific leadership. The draft text mentions some of his projects by name. The first is 'carbon capture' technology, which stores carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuels rather than releasing it into the atmosphere. Such gases can be kept under ground and used to improve oil recovery. Next comes the Methane to Markets scheme, which attempts to capture waste methane, a key greenhouse gas, and use it as a clean energy source. The US has now signed up a 15-strong 'coalition of the willing' on the same project. The White House's motivation could not be further removed from that of Greenpeace. The administration wants to ditch America's reliance on Arab oil, and is mesmerised by the 670 trillion cubic feet of methane in reserves, there to be mined. If such methane can be turned into energy, argue American neoconservatives, there would be less need for Arab oil - making Saudi Arabia a far easier place to invade. The latest US government estimates suggest that by 2015, the Methane to Markets programme will have removed 1% of all greenhouse gases emitted by humans into the atmosphere. This is the environmental equivalent of closing down England's entire road network, or shutting down 50 coal-fired power stations. And unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the methane project would oil the world economy, spreading prosperity. There are several other examples of climate technology, mostly pursued by American politicians who want to cut reliance on Arab sources of energy, or businesses seeking more profit by making fuel more efficient. The free market is in a headlong rush to find green solutions: whosoever discovers the next source of energy will be rich indeed. Blair is accepting this common interest, and producing a document everyone can agree on. It gets better with every draft. It started out proclaiming that climate charge is an "urgent" problem, echoing the implausible claims made around the time that Kyoto was in fashion that it was the single biggest emergency facing man. The Americans are toning it down, reluctant to have their energy policy decided by outsiders. This is enough to earn criticism from those who believe President Bush is a cowboy reneging on his duties to the international community. But to cast him as the number one enemy to the environment requires a long hard look at what he's planning, what he's paying for and the targets he has set his own administration without any pressure. This is why the Gleneagles Declaration will, literally, not have one word which goes beyond the US position. But its emphasis on investment, technology and clean fuels may serve to push the focus on to a new era for environmentalism. When the world community is presented with a genuine and proven threat, as it was with the emission of CFCs in the 1980s, it has shown itself more than capable of responding. CFC emissions are now back to 1950s levels. The hole in the ozone layer will be repaired in about 50 years as a result. The more developed a country becomes, the more careful it is with its energy: this is a natural law of economics that needs no treaty to ratify it. Kyoto only came alive last February after Russia signed up, making the requisite number of signatories. Yet four months on it is already looking out of date. A good piece of fuel research could be worth a decade-worth of the economic restraint it would impose. It will pain the environmentalists to admit this, but President Bush and his profit-hungry energy firms may be their best hope for cutting greenhouse gases. It will be a test of the maturity of both sides to see if they can agree at Gleneagles. |
| Posted by:phil_b |
| #11 Phil F, while I don't under-estimate the proliferation problem. In large part it stems from (France excepted) there has been no technological advancement in reactor design and build for at least 40 years, because almost none have been built in the developed world. What is needed is safe off-the-shelf designs or kits for nuclear power stations. Not only does this make nuclear power affordable, it takes away the rational for developing your own and hence the opportunity to use it to develop nuclear weapons. Any country like Iran that doesn't buy the kits and spends vastly more to develop their own design would come under immediate suspicion. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-06-19 16:52 |
| #10 Sorry, Fred! I didn't keep hitting submit-somehow it happened by using the "back" arrow. I'll sign off and try later. |
| Posted by: jules 2 2005-06-19 14:46 |
| #9 phil_b I love the title. |
| Posted by: jules 2 2005-06-19 14:40 |
| #8 phil_b I love the title. |
| Posted by: jules 2 2005-06-19 14:39 |
| #7 phil_b I love the title. |
| Posted by: jules 2 2005-06-19 14:39 |
| #6 phil_b I love the title. |
| Posted by: jules 2 2005-06-19 14:39 |
| #5 Proliferation can be countered by technology. For instance by developping reactors working with thorium instead of uranium. Uranium nuclear reactions produce plutonium, a fissile (ie who can be made unto a bomb) material who can be separated by purely chemical (ie relatively easy and cheap). But thorium reactions don't produce plutonium or other fissile isotopes so no bomb, at least no affordable bomb (enrichichment costs gazillions) |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-06-19 13:57 |
| #4 Phil_b writes: The way to reduce carbon emissions is to reduce oil dependence. A position even I a long time Kyoto critic would support. Actually, I think we'd go a lot farther replacing coal fired power plants with nuclear power plants. The problem being the proliferation problem for third world countries building nuclear plants that would use the civilian programs as covers for bomb programs. Thanks to Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran, we now know a lot more about how that would be done. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-06-19 13:25 |
| #3 Anon1 I think you haven't understood: Kyoto was NEVER designed to transfer funds between rich and poor countries (the idea didn't came from Cameroon). It was designed to transfer funds from countries with buoyant economies and growing populations to other rich countries whose economies are stagnating whose working hours are well below 40 hours (1) a week and whose people have been unwilling to spend their money in raising children (all things being equal or near equal the stagnat will pollute less than the buoyant) so now they face BIG problems for financing retirements. There are some cosmetic measures in order to get the votes of poor countries but who will have little effect (specially after the local tyrant has taken his share and deposited it in his account in Europe) (1) Please no easy jokes about the French: if my memory is any good the average number of worked hours in Germany is still lower than in France. |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-06-19 12:14 |
| #2 the article mentions the methane emission reduction steps the US is taking Methane is, molecule for molecule, several dozens times as effective as a greenhouse gas. IMO, Bush should use this fact over and over in promoting the US alternative to Kyoto. |
| Posted by: mhw 2005-06-19 09:02 |
| #1 It bears repeating: Kyoto if all nations including US and Australia both signed and complied, would ONLY REDUCE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES BY 2/10ths of a DEGREE CELCIUS OVER 50 YEARS Thus slowing global warming by a couple of months. The earth is warming and cutting carbon emissions is NOT repeat NOT going to make it stop. meanwhile there is no reason to believe that global warming is a bad thing. In past centuries it is the mini ice-ages that impacted civilisations and biodiversity hardest and the warming periods that had an explosion of life. It is a myth that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. It is a benign gas necessary for plant growth. We all exhale it. It is a myth that eating red meat is bad for the environment (hence McDonalds is terrible) due to the methane produced by the cows. There is no evidence to suggest the total amount of large herbivores is any greater now than in centuries past: cows simply replaced bison/buffalo etc that used to graze the plains. In fact atmospheric levels of methane are actually falling: scientists don't know why. It is FUTILE to try to cut carbon dioxide and there is no real reason to try. It is not a dangerous pollutant in fact it leads to better plant growth. Kyoto is just a stick to beat "rich" countries to hold back their development so the "poor" third world countries who don't have to sign can catch up. Marxism wearing a green coat. Which really annoys me because I really am an environmentalist. I love nature and want to minimise species destruction probably more than the idiots from Greenpeace who piss member's donations up the Kyoto/global warming flagpole. |
| Posted by: anon1 2005-06-19 07:48 |