COP/MOP produces a MAP
[updated, 12-12-05, 10 pm]
It is not clear why the Bush administration even bothered to send a delegation to the climate talks in Montreal. I actually made a list of what the US delegation did do, compiled from various sources:
Prime Minister Martin had received a standing ovation for a speech in which he said “To the reticent nations, including the United States, I say there is such a thing as a global conscience, and now is the time to listen to it. Now is the time … for action.” I guess next they will blame Clinton? Oh, wait – anonymous Bush-Administration officials are also reported to have told conference organizers that “any chance for the United States to sign on to the Kyoto global-warming protocol would be scuttled if they allowed Bill Clinton to speak” – as if that were ever a remote possibility. But they backed off, Clinton spoke, and they walked out anyway. The US was not the only country to receive Fossil of the Day Awards but you can read about the rest of them here. In the end, the US agreed to “exploratory global dialogue on future steps to combat climate change” still ruling out any “negotiations leading to new commitments.”
In spite of all of the above, there were some accomplishments:
We also now have more certainty on an area of uncertainty I pointed out in the initial blog post – whether science and public opinion has any effect whatsoever on Bush administration decisions, and therefore, on the climate. But, as the CAN newsletter points out, the train from Kyoto is leaving the Montreal station, leaving the Bush administration [mostly*] on the platform, and much of the world looking forward to the working with the next president, in 2009.
As for Kyoto, nothing is perfect, but an emissions cap is generally regarded as essential for lowering the cost of carbon emission reductions through markets for emission reduction credits. Although questions remain about feasibility of carbon markets in practice, IMHO, a cap on emissions can also create economic incentives for the kind of technological innovation that will be needed to begin to move beyond a fossil fuel economy. The real challenge is how to do that, as well as respond to unavoidable impacts. But there are a lot of creative ideas and possibilities floating around that just seem to need a policy framework for getting us from here to there. For a very readable overview of what was on the table in Montreal, that explains the meaning of many of the acronyms, see this article at the EcosystemMarketPlace. More thorough reporting and analysis in the Climate Action Network Eco newsletters, and the IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletins (which should have a final summary up soon).
*You are either on a train or you are not… Or, as a Montreal train conductor might say: “Alors, vous montez, ou vous restez sur le quai?”
[The pictures were taken last year at a behind the scenes tour of the ExpoRail, Canadian Railway Museum, compliments of Daniel Laurendeau, seen in the last picture, channeling the operator of a Montreal Streetcar. At the time, I was in Montreal for a combined working group meeting of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment - which I will probably blog about in the near future - the full reports are due to be released in January. In addition to ExpoRail, I also, of course, managed to squeeze in some aikido practice and a visit to the water museum which, at least at the time, had a great exhibit about climate change in the Great Lakes. ]
Untapped frontiers
Addendum to the last post: More details on this in the Guardian where “professional sceptic” Chris Horner, in an e-mail from last January, refers to Europe as an “untapped frontier,” compares himself to Neil Armstrong, and justifies his proposal by saying “US companies need someone they can trust, and it’s just a den of thieves over there.” No, I think the den of thieves emanates from the Foggy Bottom – (for non-Washingtonians, a former swamp area near the White House that has been infested by the Lernaean Hydra).
Thanks for the last link to DeSmogBlog – a new blog by public relations professional, Jim Hoggan, who is infuriated and disgusted by the use of PR talent to spread disinformation about climate, in what he calls a “triumph of disinformation.” He goes on to explain the fundamentals of ethical and unethical PR – this is required reading. Its about time the PR industry started to police its own profession – another untapped frontier.
What a surprise!
In this article that Paul Baer dug up from the Independent, Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute expresses surprise that his plan, to form a “European Sound Climate Policy Coalition” to destroy European support for the Kyoto treaty has been unsuccessful, and that the European companies he met with “rejected his ideas.” Given a bias most organizations have towards claiming progress if not success in all things that they undertake, the only surprise to me is that he admitted to it. Among those companies were Ford Europe and the German utility RWE, whose spokespersons were careful to point out that they only met with him in Brussels and don’t necessarily share his opinion. “Exactly the opposite” according to Adrian Schmitt from Ford Europe, “Our position is that climate change is a serious issue and appropriate steps need to be taken now.”
Who domesticated who?
I’ve been reading a book on Climate Change in Prehistory
