Biblically menacing effects

Von By Mark Sommer, Berkeley

To residents of Northern industrialised nations who endure ice and snow (and generate the lion's share of greenhouse gases), global warming sounds like the ultimate home improvement. Mild winters and early springs can lull one into believing that climate change is downright benign.

But for the great majority of atmospheric scientists worldwide who have studied temperature trends and modeled climate scenarios, the benign effects of climate change are far outweighed by a host of biblically menacing effects they predict will plague the earth with increasing intensity over the next century: more extreme and unpredictable weather of all kinds (hurricanes and cyclones, floodsand droughts, cold and heat waves), epidemics and insect infestations, desertification and disruption of agricultural production patterns, and inundati on of coastal cities. But those governments that have been most responsible for global climate change have also been most resistant to calls for urgent, concerted action.

The United States is the world's leading polluter. Nine of the top ten US multinational corporations hail from the energy and automotive sectors, and they have long exercised inordinate influence in the corridors of executive and legislativepower. Reflecting their dominance, the US Congress resolutely rejects the very real promise of energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy alternatives like solar, wind, hydrogen, biomes, geothermal, and small-scale hydro.

Natural events are also outpacing protracted negotiations to establish a global climate protection regime. Indeed, dealing with global warming will require a degree of cooperative global action far beyond anything yet achieved by any international treaty.

Under the 1997 Kyoto protocol, a global agreement negotiated by 160 nations, 38 industrialised and transitional (former Eastern bloc) nations committed themselves to binding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions averaging 5.2 percent below 1990 levelsbetween 2008 and 2012. The mandated reductions range from 8 percent for the European Union to 7 percent for the US and 6 percent for Japan. But most of the reductions are due to be enacted between 2008 and 2012. And if current trends are any indication, when the time comes the US will be in no position to fulfil its commitments. Its greenhouse gas emissions are already 11 percent higher than in 1990 and, in the absence of policy changes, are expected to reach 33 percent above 1990 levels in the year 2010.

The Kyoto protocol establishes a set of ´´flexible mechanisms'' for which both the guiding principles and the operational rules have yet to be agreed upon. These form the core of the debate that is due to reach a climactic phase in pivotal climate negotiations to be held in The Hague this November. At the behest of industrialised nations, an emissions trading system is being established among industrialised nations to allow those for whom further reductions would be expensive (the US and other industrial states) to buy pollution permits from other (developing) nations where reductions would be cheaper to achieve.

The US hopes to meet up to 80 percent of its mandate demissions reductions through such mechanisms and thus avoid the pain of curbing its profligate energy consumption habits. Moreover, in what many view as a stalling tactic, the Clinton administration under pressure from a recalcitrant Congress insists that developing nations ´´meaningfully participate'' in the Kyoto emissions reductions before the US Senate will ratify the agreement. But developing nations insist that since the US has been the chief polluter to date and can best afford to pay the transition costs, it must lead the way. The European Union, Japan, and other states whose emissions amount to 40 percent of the global total have proposed to put the Kyoto Protocol into effect as soon as 2002. To enter into force, however, the agreement must be ratified by at least 55 nations representing 55percent of global carbon emissions. That would be very difficult though not impossible to achieve without US participation. November's negotiations in

The Hague coincide with US presidential elections. Republican candidate George W. Bush is a quintessential Texas oil man, the embodiment of big energy interests. Democratic candidate Al Gore is the author of ´´Earth in the Balance'', in which he asserted that global warming is the greatest challenge facing humanity. These two men represent opposing poles in the global warming debate, and the outcome of their contest could affect prospects for combating calamitous climate change for years to come.