Well, the UN conference on climate change, staged at Montreal has come and gone, and as expected the USA remains isolated in its position of refusing to negotiate on measures to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, it’s always going to be difficult for any administration to take “unpopular” measures to reduce greenhouse gas output in a country so heavily dependent on oil. Not least of the problems is that as with other democracies with a life cycle of between 4-7 years, the benefits of measures taken now won’t be apparent until after the current administration has ended its term of office.
This topic is being discussed on another board that I visit, and the folks there seem to be split into three camps – those who acknowledge the existence of global warming and are concerned, those who acknowledge it but don’t think there’s a problem, and those who think the whole issue is stuff and nonsense!
I take the view that like myself, most other people here don’t have a fully scientific understanding of the issues, beyond what we read in the papers. Personally, I prefer to give credence to the world’s scientists. When we have a scientific body that can, for example, predict the precise date, time and location of a solar eclipse YEARS in advance of the event, that tells me that they know what they’re talking about. By the same token, if an equally qualified group of scientists tell us that there really is a problem with regard to climate change and global warming, then I’m inclined to listen.
In his book,
”Billions and Billions”, the late American scientist and cosmologist Dr. Carl Sagan describes the difficulties he encountered in trying to convey his concerns about global warming to US politicians. One of them, having been apprised of the dangers of UV radiation resulting from a depletion of our protective ozone layer, retorted quite flippantly by saying that
”it won’t be a problem – we can just wear sunglasses”. As Dr. Sagan went on to point out, this would not be an option for life forms lower down the food chain. Indeed, the only politician on the world stage at that time that Dr. Sagan named as having a working scientific understanding of the problem and the reality of its dangers was British PM Margaret Thatcher, herself an Oxford graduate with a degree in Chemistry.
And in the 1980s, when US Chrysler Corp. CEO, Lee Iacocca urged Ronald Reagan to curb America’s energy consumption by introducing a small rise in tax on gasoline, Reagan replied to Iacocca in one of those “listen, son” tones, saying that right now that would “not be popular”. Iacocca was absolutely appalled that one of the key factors in policy making was “popularity”. Reagan was his friend, but Iacocca really panned him as a president.
I can well understand the sense of exasperation felt by Sagan and Iacocca. On this very board, I have encountered people who “see no reason” to curb the burning of fossil fuels, or who even believe that the most expeditious consumption of the world’s remaining oil stocks “would be a good thing”. But this is not surprising, coming from a country which produces vehicles which in some circumstances burn fuel at the rate a gallon for every 12 miles driven, but are considered by some to be “pretty economical”.
It seems that the Bush administration wants no part in greening up by reducing CO2 emissions, as this would involve a reduction in oil consumption, preferring instead to trust to some technological miracle which currently does not exist. The Kyoto agreement was rejected as an “economic straitjacket” in 2001. The US chief negotiator, Harlan Watson even stormed out of one meeting at last week’s conference in Montreal, so determined was he not to budge even an inch. Against this hardline stance, even Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton, has emerged as one of the government’s leading energy policy critics.
What can be done, and where? The following is a list of leading industrialised countries, and their contribution to the world output of greenhouse gases.
- USA (25 % )
- China (15 % )
- Russia (7 % )
- Japan (5 % )
- India (4 % )
- Germany (4 % )
- UK (2 % )
- Canada (2 % )
- Italy (2 % )
If Britain were to halve its greenhouse gas emissions, it would make a difference of only 1% to the world total. But as can be seen from this list, the country with 5% of the world’s population emits 25% of the world’s greenhouse gas, so it should be obvious where the cuts would have to be made to make any impact on this GLOBAL problem.
As a higher rate taxpayer myself, I don’t like paying taxes, and I can’t think of anyone who does. It was interesting to see the effect that the post Katrina oil prices had on the motoring public. In another thread, it was revealed that although the increased annual cost of running a 12mpg gas guzzler was only ~$500 for a driver doing an average annual mileage of 12,000 miles, such vehicles were having to be discounted not by $1000 or $2000, but by a massive $15,000 in order to make them sell. My point is that a
small levy could make a
big difference to people’s motoring habits, and a big reduction in greenhouse gas output.
I do believe that everything will turn out right in the end. As Sir Winston Churchill once said,
"America always makes the right decision..."...and added
"after having tried everything else".
