Hot air

The weather has been unusually lousy in parts of North America this year. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, the 20th century was the hottest in the past 1000 years, and 1998 was the hottest year ever on record. The World Meteorological Organization recently warned that abnormal weather may occur more frequently if global warming continues. Almost 600 tornadoes touched down in the US in May alone. My thoughts drift to the ancient Japanese city of Kyoto. One of the most controversial environmental issues for the Bush administration has been the international agreement formally known as the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, adopted in 1997 at an international meeting in Japan's medieval capital. More than 170 nations signed the treaty, including the US, members of the EU, Canada, and Japan. As with other international treaties, however, the US Senate had to ratify the measure – and that has not happened. The controversy, of course, is over the fact that the US withdrew from the treaty in 2001. As we all know, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which traps heat in the atmosphere instead of allowing it to radiate back into space. It's a natural phenomenon that makes life on earth possible, but the rise of civilization has thrown Mother Nature's balance way off. (This is a serious issue, but not without its lighter side: Australia and New Zealand briefly considered a “flatulence tax” on their own enormous cattle industries, to account for the animals' propensity to produce lots and lots of methane.) The US emits more CO2 than any other country; in fact, we produce roughly 36% of the world's greenhouse gases. One EPA estimate says that our power plants alone account for 10% of global CO2 emissions. Our withdrawal means that the treaty, despite its expected ratification by Russia (responsible for over 17% of global CO2 herself), is hobbling forward with a chain around its ankle. According to the terms of the Kyoto agreement – which, remember, the US originally supported – the Protocol must be ratified by at least 55 countries, whose combined greenhouse gas emissions account for 55% of such emissions from industrialized countries. Signatories must commit to cutting their greenhouse gas emissions by 8% from their 1990 levels. Even though 111 countries have already ratified the pact, all the way down to little Niue in the South Pacific, without the US on board reaching the 55% level becomes much more difficult. The EU, perhaps stung by the events surrounding Iraq, has taken the lead in herding various nations into place. Even beleaguered old Russia seems to be queuing up, although some doubt that it will ever be able to lower its CO2 emissions enough. In July 2001, the EU, Japan, Canada, Russia, Australia, and 170 other nations collectively thumbed their noses at the US and reached an agreement to proceed with the treaty anyway. (“With us or against us”, indeed.) In order to convince some industrialized nations, though, the EU has had to make substantial concessions. The emissions reduction targets for Japan, Canada, Australia, and Russia were reduced to one third of their original levels, and countries were given the option of planting forests to earn pollution credits in lieu of reducing emissions. Nevertheless, the US continues to emphasize continued research into climate change, market-based initiatives, and the transference of new technology to developing countries over complying with Kyoto. As I write this, sweltering in the July heat, the government has just released a report recommending a US-backed study, the “Climate Change Science Program”, to examine the effects of global warming on the planet. (Give me a call, guys; I'll tell you all about it.) The stated goals are to improve our knowledge of the earth's climate and “reduce uncertainty in projections of how the earth's climate and related systems may change in the future”, and they have given themselves a decade to do it. American industry and the current administration have criticized the Kyoto agreement for its focus on developed countries, its lack of alternative ways of reducing emissions, and careful land-use policies. The tension between energy production and environmental protection is key. In the end, we have rejected mandatory limits in favor of trusting industries to voluntarily reduce their emissions by 18% over the next decade – and they don't have a great track record so far. Along with the administration's “Clear Skies” initiative (also mostly voluntary), it calls for a reduction in three pollutants produced by coal-burning electrical utilities and factories. Environmental activists and some scientists say the plan doesn't cut it, calling it a delaying tactic and even “fiddling while Rome burns”. A competing Senate bill actually includes mandatory CO2 reductions, which sets the stage for a bit of a battle. Apparently we must all be patient. Our government is moving with palpable slowness, while the rest of us overheat and tap our feet. Meanwhile, I'll crank up my air conditioning – and maybe I should have a talk with those cows in the field next door. Douglass Rohrman

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.