The Kyoto Protocol on Global Warming
American Inaction, European Hypocrisy
by Brian Farenell
(c) 11 July '01
I'm a member of the Green Party here in New York State. Thus, I am very much
opposed to the decision by President Bush to abandon interest in the Kyoto Anti-Global
Warming Protocol It's not a perfect treaty but the reservations by Pres. Bush and other opponents
of the treaty are unfounded, I believe. The benefit of action is worth the cost of cutting back
emissions.
That said, there are two things that bother me about the reaction to this decision.
1) The US has not made any progress on Kyoto since Pres. Clinton signed it. It was
Clinton (a Democrat, the supposedly pro-environment party) who did NOTHING to push for
Kyoto during the late 90s. The US Senate passed a unanimous non-binding resolution by 95-0 urging
Kyoto not to be adopted in its present form. While this may have been the wrong decision, it was
clear that Kyoto was never going to get the 67 votes in the Senate needed to ratify it. Clinton
knew that and that's why he didn't do anything. All Bush did was acknowledge this reality
and he gets lambasted for it. He's doing the same thing about Kyoto as Clinton did: nothing.
They're both wrong but only Bush is being honest about it. And he's being lambasted for his
straight-forwardness in a way that Clinton, who maintained the facade, was not. There's
much to find fault with Pres. Bush's policies in relation to the environment, but the left's attack
on him for Kyoto (the same who remained silent in the face of Clinton's inaction) smacks
of unvarnished partisan hogwash.
2) The reaction of other western countries is hypocritical. How many countries in Western
Europe have ratified Kyoto? None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Aucun. Canada? Not as long as Jean
Chrétien's there. Australia or NZ? Not yet. If the arguments in favor of Kyoto are so
ovewhelming, why hasn't France ratified it? Or Holland? Or Germany? Why are their
governements spending their time berating Bush insteading of voting on the treaty
themselves? Are Western European leaders more interested in APPEARING to be anti-global
warming than actually BEING anti-global warming? Personally, I don't think they're any more
keen to ratify Kyoto than is Bush and they're probably pleased that the American president
gave them a convenient way to weasel out of it, to be able to enunciate pro-environment
rhetoric without actually doing anything.
3) Now, Australia says it won't ratify Kyoto unless the USA does. This is the most perfect
example of the hypocrisy I'm talking about. The Howard government wants to appear to
support it without having the guts to go out on a limb and truly support it. I think Kyoto
should be implimented, period. With the United States or without. Preferably with. But Bush's intransigence should not be an
excuse for Western Europe to weasel out of it. Kyoto will be notably less effective without US
participation, without any question. But even if only 70% of Kyoto's objectives are reached (sans USA),
it's certainly better than the 0% that would be achieved if Europe continues to try to have it
both ways. Hopefully once Europe impliments it and finds out it doesn't destroy their
economy, contrary to the doomsayers' predictions, pressure will grow in the US to adhere.
The US' position on Kyoto may be wrong, but at least its straight-forward, at least you know
where Washington stands and can lobby appropriately. The European position on Kyoto is
both wrong (because no one in EU has ratified it either) AND hypocritical. If they want
effective action, European environmentalists should also look close to home, not
just on this side of the Atlantic.
Click here to return to my writings' page
Click here to return to my home page
Page last updated: 11 July '01, 1600 EDT
