tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19883544.post6962391941682692979..comments2023-09-24T05:52:39.273-05:00Comments on Green Party of Monroe County: Greens versus Green-washed: Mesplay on the Bali Climate Change meetingDeborah Magonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14905852053125317820noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19883544.post-63377743549298400732007-12-18T20:27:00.000-05:002007-12-18T20:27:00.000-05:00We've been suckered again by the US. So far theBal...We've been suckered again by the US. So far the<BR/>Bali deal is worse than Kyoto<BR/> <BR/>America will keep on wrecking climate talks as<BR/>long as those with vested interests in oil and<BR/>gas fund its political system <BR/> <BR/>George Monbiot<BR/>Monday December 17, 2007<BR/>The Guardian<BR/>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2228615,00.html<BR/> <BR/> <BR/>'After 11 days of negotiations, governments have<BR/>come up with a compromise deal that could even<BR/>lead to emission increases. The highly<BR/>compromised political deal is largely<BR/>attributable to the position of the United<BR/>States, which was heavily influenced by fossil<BR/>fuel and automobile industry interests. The<BR/>failure to reach agreement led to the talks<BR/>spilling over into an all-night session."<BR/> <BR/>These are extracts from a press release by<BR/>Friends of the Earth. So what? Well it was<BR/>published on December 11 - I mean to say,<BR/>December 11 1997. The US had just put a wrecking<BR/>ball through the Kyoto protocol. George Bush was<BR/>innocent; he was busy executing prisoners in<BR/>Texas. Its climate negotiators were led by Albert<BR/>Arnold Gore.<BR/> <BR/>The European Union had asked for greenhouse gas<BR/>cuts of 15% by 2010. Gore's team drove them down<BR/>to 5.2% by 2012. Then the Americans did something<BR/>worse: they destroyed the whole agreement.<BR/> <BR/>Most of the other governments insisted that the<BR/>cuts be made at home. But Gore demanded a series<BR/>of loopholes big enough to drive a Hummer<BR/>through. The rich nations, he said, should be<BR/>allowed to buy their cuts from other countries.<BR/>When he won, the protocol created an exuberant<BR/>global market in fake emissions cuts. The western<BR/>nations could buy "hot air" from the former<BR/>Soviet Union. Because the cuts were made against<BR/>emissions in 1990, and because industry in that<BR/>bloc had subsequently collapsed, the former<BR/>Soviet Union countries would pass well below the<BR/>bar. Gore's scam allowed them to sell the gases<BR/>they weren't producing to other nations. He also<BR/>insisted that rich nations could buy nominal cuts<BR/>from poor ones. Entrepreneurs in India and China<BR/>have made billions by building factories whose<BR/>primary purpose is to produce greenhouse gases,<BR/>so that carbon traders in the rich world will pay<BR/>to clean them up.<BR/> <BR/>The result of this sabotage is that the market<BR/>for low-carbon technologies has remained<BR/>moribund. Without an assured high value for<BR/>carbon cuts, without any certainty that<BR/>government policies will be sustained, companies<BR/>have continued to invest in the safe commercial<BR/>prospects offered by fossil fuels rather than<BR/>gamble on a market without an obvious floor.<BR/> <BR/>By ensuring that the rich nations would not make<BR/>real cuts, Gore also guaranteed that the poor<BR/>ones scoffed when we asked them to do as we<BR/>don't. When George Bush announced, in 2001, that<BR/>he would not ratify the Kyoto protocol, the world<BR/>cursed and stamped its foot. But his<BR/>intransigence affected only the US. Gore's team<BR/>ruined it for everyone.<BR/> <BR/>The destructive power of the American delegation<BR/>is not the only thing that hasn't changed. After<BR/>the Kyoto protocol was agreed, the then British<BR/>environment secretary, John Prescott, announced:<BR/>"This is a truly historic deal which will help<BR/>curb the problems of climate change. For the<BR/>first time it commits developed countries to make<BR/>legally binding cuts in their emissions." Ten<BR/>years later, the current environment secretary,<BR/>Hilary Benn, told us that "this is an historic<BR/>breakthrough and a huge step forward. For the<BR/>first time ever, all the world's nations have<BR/>agreed to negotiate on a deal to tackle dangerous<BR/>climate change." Do these people have a chip<BR/>inserted?<BR/> <BR/>In both cases, the US demanded terms that<BR/>appeared impossible for the other nations to<BR/>accept. Before Kyoto, the other negotiators<BR/>flatly rejected Gore's proposals for emissions<BR/>trading. So his team threatened to sink the<BR/>talks. The other nations capitulated, but the US<BR/>still held out on technicalities until the very<BR/>last moment, when it suddenly appeared to<BR/>concede. In 1997 and in 2007 it got the best of<BR/>both worlds: it wrecked the treaty and was<BR/>praised for saving it.<BR/> <BR/>Hilary Benn is an idiot. Our diplomats are<BR/>suckers. American negotiators have pulled the<BR/>same trick twice, and for the second time our<BR/>governments have fallen for it.<BR/> <BR/>There are still two years to go, but so far the<BR/>new agreement is even worse than the Kyoto<BR/>protocol. It contains no targets and no dates. A<BR/>new set of guidelines also agreed at Bali extend<BR/>and strengthen the worst of Gore's trading scams,<BR/>the clean development mechanism. Benn and the<BR/>other dupes are cheering and waving their hats as<BR/>the train leaves the station at last, having<BR/>failed to notice that it is travelling in the<BR/>wrong direction.<BR/> <BR/>Although Gore does a better job of governing now<BR/>he is out of office, he was no George Bush. He<BR/>wanted a strong, binding and meaningful protocol,<BR/>but American politics had made it impossible. In<BR/>July 1997, the Senate had voted 95-0 to sink any<BR/>treaty which failed to treat developing countries<BR/>in the same way as it treated the rich ones.<BR/>Though they knew this was impossible for<BR/>developing countries to accept, all the Democrats<BR/>lined up with all the Republicans. The Clinton<BR/>administration had proposed a compromise: instead<BR/>of binding commitments for the developing<BR/>nations, Gore would demand emissions trading. But<BR/>even when he succeeded, he announced that "we<BR/>will not submit this agreement for ratification<BR/>[in the Senate] until key developing nations<BR/>participate". Clinton could thus avoid an<BR/>unwinnable war.<BR/> <BR/>So why, regardless of the character of its<BR/>leaders, does the US act this way? Because, like<BR/>several other modern democracies, it is subject<BR/>to two great corrupting forces. I have written<BR/>before about the role of the corporate media -<BR/>particularly in the US - in downplaying the<BR/>threat of climate change and demonising anyone<BR/>who tries to address it. I won't bore you with it<BR/>again, except to remark that at 3pm eastern<BR/>standard time on Saturday, there were 20 news<BR/>items on the front page of the Fox News website.<BR/>The climate deal came 20th, after "Bikini-wearing<BR/>stewardesses sell calendar for charity" and<BR/>"Florida store sells 'Santa Hates You' T-shirt".<BR/> <BR/>Let us consider instead the other great source of<BR/>corruption: campaign finance. The Senate rejects<BR/>effective action on climate change because its<BR/>members are bought and bound by the companies<BR/>that stand to lose. When you study the tables<BR/>showing who gives what to whom, you are struck by<BR/>two things.<BR/> <BR/>One is the quantity. Since 1990, the energy and<BR/>natural resources sector - mostly coal, oil, gas,<BR/>logging and agribusiness - has given $418m to<BR/>federal politicians in the US. Transport<BR/>companies have given $355m. The other is the<BR/>width: the undiscriminating nature of this<BR/>munificence. The big polluters favour the<BR/>Republicans, but most of them also fund<BR/>Democrats. During the 2000 presidential campaign,<BR/>oil and gas companies lavished money on Bush, but<BR/>they also gave Gore $142,000, while transport<BR/>companies gave him $347,000. The whole US<BR/>political system is in hock to people who put<BR/>their profits ahead of the biosphere.<BR/> <BR/>So don't believe all this nonsense about waiting<BR/>for the next president to sort it out. This is a<BR/>much bigger problem than George Bush. Yes, he is<BR/>viscerally opposed to tackling climate change.<BR/>But viscera don't have much to do with it. Until<BR/>the American people confront their political<BR/>funding system, their politicians will keep<BR/>speaking from the pocket, not the gut.<BR/> <BR/>http://www.monbiot.comJason Nabewaniechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00813762834231138195noreply@blogger.com