Maurice Strong is no ordinary socialist and environmental activist. He’s a one-man, non-governmental organization whose policies on everything from bio-diversity to global warming have been adopted — in theory, if not in practice — by governments of all stripes. The Canadian-born prophet of doom is one of the most influential people on the planet, and for proof, one need look only at the number of politicians and bureaucrats gathered this past week in The Hague for something called the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The conference was aimed at finding ways to implement the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, a Strong-inspired (via the United Nations) document that calls for industrialized nations to make drastic cuts in the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) — namely carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by the burning of fossil fuels — so as to combat the alleged threat of man-made global warming. Instead, it degenerated into petty battles over the merits of various emissions trading schemes, interrupted by calls for such things as a ploughing ban to cut CO2 emissions and an immediate end to oil and gas exploration. Poor nations blamed rich nations for “cooking” the planet, and, in the next breath, offered to sell them their unused GHG emissions credits. Environmentalists complained that bureaucrats from rich nations were interested only in finding loopholes that would allow them to look good at home without economic pain or environmental gain.
To complicate matters further, one of the early global warming proponents suggested that CO2 might not be the major driver of climate change after all. Other GHGs came under scrutiny, particularly methane, which has far more heat-trapping power than CO2. It’s produced by rice cultivation (the largest man-made source) and by cows, pigs and other ruminants. Beavers and wetlands are big generators too. But not all environmentalists warmed to the new theory, perhaps because the producers of methane have far shallower pockets than the much-vilified Carbon Club.
Despite some last-minute theatrics aimed at shaming developing nations into compliance, the talks collapsed without agreement. Canada and the United States were blamed because they wanted credit for maintaining forest cover as a “carbon sink.” Some Canadian environmentalists burned their passports in protest.
The brouhaha at The Hague probably isn’t a surprise to the more than 17,000 American scientists (two-thirds of whom have advanced academic degrees) who, in 1998, signed a petition expressing “profound skepticism” about the science underlying the Kyoto Accord. They pointed out that atmospheric data did not support the elaborate computer-driven climate models being cited by the United Nations and others as “proof” of a major future warming. “This freely expressed vote against the warming scare propaganda should be contrasted with the ‘consensus of 2,500 climate scientists’ about global warming,” the petition stated.
As it turned out, the “consensus” of scientists who contributed to the 1996 report of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was a fabrication. Many were government policy-makers, and not scientists at all. Some climate scientists were listed only because their data were cited, or because they were asked to review parts of the report. When it was learned that policy-makers had written most of the report’s summary, a U.S. State Department official conceded that it was “a political document, not a scientific one.” However, this wasn’t a problem for U.S. Vice-President Al Gore, who ignored 17,000 of his nation’s top scientists to give Kyoto his blessing.
After reading the fine print, though, various groups complained that the Kyoto cure might be worse than the disease. The Argonne National Laboratory, well-known for its scientific excellence, concluded that policy restrictions on six energy-intensive industries — chemicals, petroleum refining, paper, iron and steel, aluminum and cements — in developed countries would result in a “significant adverse impact.” The main effect would be to redistribute output, employment and emissions from developed countries to 130 developing countries that are not required to participate, including China, India and Brazil. Numerous other studies came to the same conclusion.
Despite the groundswell of criticism, powerful environmental groups rallied to the global-warming cause. The media succumbed to an onslaught of sensational propaganda, and, before long, every hurricane, heat wave, flood and drought was held up as proof of man-made warming. Doubting scientists were dismissed as pawns of industry, or fools in denial. Research funds flowed to their more “open-minded” peers. Studies that questioned the costs of Kyoto were denounced as “preaching economic Armageddon” in a desperate bid to stall action. Oil companies and other industries were demonized and shamed into silence and submission. Guilt-ridden politicians from developed countries vowed to do more to curtail GHGs. Strong’s dire diagnosis took hold in the collective conscious. So did the notion that Kyoto is the fix.
But the reality is that Kyoto was doomed from the start. There is no hope that Canada will meet its target to cut GHGs by 6% from 1990 levels by 2012, at least not without plunging the nation into recession. Emissions have already risen 13% since 1990. The U.S. won’t meet its target either, not without throttling down its economy to reduce energy consumption by 30 per cent. But that is only half the story.
Governments of developed countries are extremely wary of Kyoto’s open-ended financial obligations, which is why none have ratified it. It requires industrialized nations to pay all of the developing countries’ costs associated with climate change, including the costs of “adaptation” and “mitigation” — and not just environmental costs, but social and economic ones too. Rich countries will also have to provide poor countries with the necessary technologies free of charge, and then help them develop the “capacity” to manufacture and implement these technologies. The fine print suggests that agenda other than purely environmental ones are at work.
Kofi Annan, the U.N. Secretary-General, admitted as much when he told delegates at the Hague conference that “if we are to bring greenhouse gas emissions down to a sustainable level, we need to make radical changes to the world economy, and in the way we all live.”
Annan urged delegates to do three things to make the conference a success. First, “draw up a credible rule book of measures that industrialized countries must take, since at present they produce most of the emissions.” Second, “help chart a new path of development,” because “measures to reduce global warming in industrialized countries will be in vain if, meanwhile, developing countries are following the same wasteful and noxious patterns of industrialization.” And third, “give a convincing signal” to the private sector that reducing greenhouse gases will pay. “Until now,” he added, “corporations have profited by polluting the environment. In future, we must make them have an incentive to clean it up.”
However, at the end of the day, there was no rule book, no new path, and no convincing signal — only a pledge to try again next spring, when the summit reconvenes in Bonn, Germany. Jacques Chirac, president of France, said industrialized nations have “a moral and political duty” to move forward to make Kyoto a reality. Action must be taken, he added, “if we are not to be guilty of failing to come to the assistance of a planet in danger.”
NGOs and environmental groups don’t intend to give up either, despite the challenges from skeptics who continue to point to flaws in the computer-generated model underlying Kyoto. As always, advocates cite the “precautionary principle” and argue that a “burning Earth” can not wait for more studies.
If Earth is “burning” now, God help us all. On a geological scale, we are still in the midst of a major cooling period that began around 3 million years ago, and which will likely run for millions more. During our present Ice Age, more than 20 glacial advances and retreats have occurred, the most recent of which lasted from about 115,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago. Our modern climate represents a short, warm period between glacial advances, and, if past patterns are repeated, Earth has already entered the beginning of the next worldwide glaciation.
Geological context is important here, because alarmists who decry the “meltdown” of the Arctic forget to mention that huge ice sheets covered much of Canada 10,000 years ago; nor do they understand that the benefits of the subsequent warming gave us the temperate climate we enjoy today. Most don’t even know that Earth was three degrees hotter 5,500 years ago than it is now. And few bother to mention that recent human history documents numerous warmings and coolings — some sudden, others gradual. Geological context helps the public understand climate change, as well as the role of GHGs, without which this planet would be in a perpetual deep-freeze.
If the geologic record tells us anything, it is that mighty natural forces — not miniscule human ones — drive climate change. Furthermore, most of the evidence shows that Earth is not warming to the degree claimed by global warming theorists. The 17,000 scientists who questioned the science underlying Kyoto are being proved right. (More on that next week.)
Contrary to conventional popular delusion, we have time to get the science, and our environmental priorities, right. Enormous resources are being allocated to combat global warming, yet, without the participation of developing nations, gains may never materialize. Even if Kyoto is implemented, warming would drop a mere 0.19 degree Celsius over 50 years (indistinguishable from normal year-to-year fluctuations), according to the U.S. National Centre for Atmospheric Research.
Given the fiasco at The Hague, it hardly seems prudent to continue allowing our environmental policies to be shaped by shaky science, wonky policy-makers and special-interest groups. Real progress could be made if nations were to focus their energies and resources on the front-line fight against pollution of air, soil and water. We need technologies to treat garbage, sewage and toxic waste, and to ensure clean drinking water, just as much as we need to develop alternative fuels and less-polluting transportation systems. But good science should guide those efforts, not politics or fear.
Next week: The Burden of Proof.
Be the first to comment on "Global warming: Part 1"