Posted on 08/29/2002 12:54:49 PM PDT by cogitator
Temperature rises at Earth Summit
The political temperature is rising at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg as the United States and Europe take opposite approaches on empowering the Third World and the health of Planet Earth.
Pressure is mounting on Washington to ratify the Kyoto Protocol to combat global warming, with the United States -- the world's greatest greenhouse-gas polluter -- coming under friendly fire from allies.
The world's most wretchedly poor countries -- in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean -- meanwhile believe that a fraction of the billion dollars a day shelled out to already rich farmers in Europe and the United States would allow them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and enhance the world's collective wealth.
The UN World Meteorological Organisation is warning here that the "complex and highly variable climate system ... is undoubtedly changing".
Delegates were stunned Wednesday to see Greenpeace -- which regularly mounts commando raids to publicise its environmental aims -- join forces with a business coalition grouping such multibillion dollar corporations as ChevronTexaco, Conoco and BP (oil and gas), DuPont (chemicals), Alcoa (aluminium), DaimlerChrysler and Honda (vehicles) and Michelin (tyres).
"Despite our well-known differences, we have found ourselves frustrated by a lack of political will and decisiveness of the governnments to fulfill their commitments under the (1992) Rio (first Earth Summit) agreements," spokesmen for the two groups said.
They added: "Given the seriousness of the risk of climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we are shelving our differences on other issues on this occasion, and we call on governments to be responsible and to build the international framework to tackle climate change."
Hours earlier, Japan had appealed to the United States, its ally, to become a Kyoto ratifier.
Twelve Greenpeace activists are meanwhile due to appear in court on Friday for unfurling anti-nuclear banners at South Africa's nuclear power plant near Cape Town.
The decision of US President George W. Bush to send Secretary of State Colin Powell to Johannesburg in his place to sit below 104 heads of state and governments from other nations while he himself takes a holiday has infuriated many delegates, who take the decision as an indication of the disdain of what they see as a bullying nation for the opinion of the rest of the world.
Negotiators are narrowing the gaps on some issues in the blueprint for the future that the summit is working on, but the United States says flatly that proposals are "unacceptable" on the major ones.
They will see divisions between rich and poor continue, along with vandalism of the world's ecology, or a more balanced approach which would see the world's poor centimetering up to attain the knowledge, skills and living standards of the rich, incidentally providing greater markets for First World companies.
More than 30 years ago nations adopted a foreign aid target of 0.7 percent of gross domestic product, a campaign the United States declined to join. Washington's contribution today stands at a meagre 0.1 percent of its GDP.
The world's two biggest trade powers have been clashing bitterly on the environment and trade since soon after Bush entered the Oval Office in January
After Bush's renunciation of the Kyoto Protocol in March last year, the administration slapped high tariffs on steel imports and gave a huge subsidy boost to American farmers, further fuelling resentment and exposing a deep and almost ideological transatlantic divide.
In talks to craft the Earth Summit's blueprint for action, US and EU negotiators remain far apart on setting a timetable and specific goals for giving the world's poor access to clean drinking water, sanitation and electricity.
The United States is also fighting textual commitments that would press rich countries to meet their promises of boosting development aid, and is fiercely opposed to timetables -- supported by Europe -- that would reinforce vague promises.
Europe supports multilateral agreements, but the United States is chary of them, preferring one-on-one commitments where no one else can interfere.
I love the line that "Pressure is mounting on Washington to ratify the Kyoto Protocol."
That's not going to happen. Next item, please.
Just more mush-mouth talk for "Gimme your bucks!!"
After Bush's renunciation of the Kyoto Protocol in March last year, the administration slapped high tariffs on steel imports and gave a huge subsidy boost to American farmers, further fuelling resentment and exposing a deep and almost ideological transatlantic divide.
So split the difference – keep the Kyoto Protocol dead and buried, but scrap the steel tariffs, and drop the subsidies to American farmers.
It’s a win-win for everybody, foreign and domestic, who isn’t looking for a US government handout.
Jo-berg in August isn't exactly sweltering, Nor is Oslo, at any time. Why aren't they holding the thing somewhere hot, like Baghdad?
Well, we can dream, anyway...
I agree. Lefties are the same everywhere. Actually, what they're trying to do is to set up an automatic international welfare system. Steal from those who earn it to GIVE to those who don't.
Other nations must remain poor and on foot if the environment is not to be harmed further by more cars on the road, more air conditioning, more pollution from former third world nations that become economically viable.
If they become well enough off economically to pollute, then their pollution, combined with the pollution of industrialized nations, would just do the poor planet in.
So by not giving them money and leaving them in the culture they hold so dear, we are not only saving them from themselves, we are saving the planet. Where's the gratitude?
The author of this article has it backwards. The US has disdain for the pressure tactics of the bullying pro Kyoto nations.
Rather than convene a seminar on the subject, suffice it to say that if these dingbat government people would get the hell out of the way, and stop stealing their people's time, talent and treasure, most of the world's people would be rich.
But then there would be no need for government dingbats. Can't have that, can we?
Certainly not in a Post-Modern, 21st Century World! [Sarcasm off]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.