'US climate policy bigger threat to world than terrorism'

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

09 January 2004

Tony Blair's chief scientist has launched a withering attack on President George Bush for failing to tackle climate change, which he says is more serious than terrorism.

Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser, says in an article today in the journal Science that America, the world's greatest polluter, must take the threat of global warming more seriously.

"In my view, climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism," Sir David says.

The Bush administration was wrong to pull out of the Kyoto protocol, the international effort to limit the emission of greenhouse gases, and wrong to imply the protocol could adversely affect the US economy, Sir David says. "As the world's only remaining superpower, the United States is accustomed to leading internationally co-ordinated action. But the US government is failing to take up the challenge of global warming.

"The Bush administration's strategy relies largely on market-based incentives and voluntary action ... But the market cannot decide that mitigation is necessary, nor can it establish the basic international framework in which all actors can take their place."

Results of a major study showed yesterday that more than a million species will become extinct as a result of global warming over the next 50 years. Sir David says the Bush administration is wrong to dispute the reality of global warming. The 10 hottest years on record started in 1991 and, worldwide, average temperatures had risen by 0.6C in the past century.

Sea levels were rising, ice caps were melting and flooding had become more frequent. The Thames barrier was used about once a year in the 1980s to protect London but now it was used more than six times a year.

"If we could stabilise the atmosphere's carbon dioxide concentration at some realistically achievable and relatively low level, there is still a good chance of mitigating the worst effects of climate change."

But countries such as Britain could not solve the problem of global warming in isolation, particularly when the US was by far the biggest producer of greenhouse gases on the planet. "The United Kingdom is responsible for only 2 per cent of the world's emissions, the United States for more than 20 per cent (although it contains only 4 per cent of the world's population)," Sir David says.

"The United States is already in the forefront of the science and technology of global change, and the next step is surely to tackle emissions control too. We can overcome this challenge only by facing it together, shoulder to shoulder. We in the rest of the world are now looking to the US to play its leading part."

Advisers to President Bush have suggested climate change is a natural phenomenon and criticised climate researchers for suggesting that rises in global temperatures are the result of man-made emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

But Sir David says the "causal link" between man-made emissions and global warming is well-established and scientists cannot explain the general warming trend over the past century without invoking human-induced effects.

The Cambridge academic, who was born in South Africa and emigrated to Britain, implies that the US has a moral obligation to follow the UK's lead in trying to limit the damage resulting from rising world temperatures and climate change.

"As a consequence of continued warming, millions more people around the world may in future be exposed to the risk of hunger, drought, flooding, and debilitating diseases such as malaria," Sir David says.

"Poor people in developing countries are likely to be most vulnerable. For instance, by 2080, if we assume continuing growth rates in consumption of fossil fuels, the numbers of additional people exposed to frequent flooding in the river delta areas of the world would be counted in hundreds of millions assuming no adaptation measures were implemented."

President Bush has said more research on global warming is needed before the US will consider the sort of action needed to comply with the Kyoto protocol, but Sir David says that by then it could be too late. "Delaying action for decades, or even just years, is not a serious option. I am firmly convinced that if we do not begin now, more substantial, more disruptive, and more expensive change will be needed later on."

Britain is committed to cutting its emissions of greenhouse gases by 60 per cent from 1990 levels by around 2050 and believes other developed countries, such as the US, should follow suit. Bush officials say that would damage their economy and provide an unfair advantage to the country's international competitors. But Sir David says that it is a "myth" that reducing greenhouse gas emissions makes us poorer. "Taking action to tackle climate change can create economic opportunities and higher living standards," he says.

A spokeswoman for the US State Department said that she was unable to comment directly on Sir David's article.

source: INDEPENDENT (and all other Bristish media reported about this as well. 'Science' magazine is only to read online by subscription.)

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,456 • Replies: 58

No top replies

God forbid the US economy should suffer. Though I beleive Oz pulled out of it as well. Our conservative governments aren't going to take any action that may upset their corporate chums.

0 Replies

Hooray for Walter.

I hope that (a) the Bush camp wake up to their error or (b) his replacement, a sensible Democrat, will make the change.

I have yet to discover what the various Democratic candidates have to say on the matter. Anyone?

0 Replies

Unfortunately , less than half of scientists in the areas of meteology, climatics, geophysics, geography agree with the cause and effect relationship that Mr Blairs scientist staes 'Is obvious"

no its not obvious, climate data has been collected for a span of time of about 80000 years by looking at ice cores and even longer by looking at varved clays. The patterns of climate changes are episodic and natural. In fact, theres really little real evidence thats convincing to the contrary.
I believe that climate change is occuring, Im not certain that weve found a relationship between this 'wurm" and the previous spans of moderating climate.

I think we should get our science from the original sources and not freom sound bytes.

0 Replies

Yes
Kerry has spoken about this a few times. He has a program on his Website.

Dubya and his gang are the most dangerous group on the planet in many ways. If they don't get booted out of office maybe they should be tried for treason.

At the very least the UN should charge these thugs with some crimes against humanity. I feel that all the nations should demand this.

0 Replies

farmerman,

King is not a puppet of any particular cause. Pretty much the rest of the world's scientists agree that carbon dioxide emissions need to be reduced.

In addition to global warming, the reduction in oil supplies for necessary (non burning) uses seems like a good argument to me.

For a start, gas should be taxed in the US as it is in Europe and elsewhere, bringing its price to around $4.00 per gallon. Yes - that's really the price we pay over here. In that way, the environmental impact of running SUVs etc. will be calculated in to the price. Bush's tax break on SUV drivers (which is hardly publiced this side of the pond) makes me sick.

I won't go quite as far as pistoff in his call for the UN to get involved but I'm clearly not convinced that the US government's scientists are unbiased by the interests of the oil industry moguls who financed Bush into power.

KP

0 Replies

I don't think it's good enough to continue to say the scientific jury is still out while the temperature continues to rise. What if this guy is right? By the time the whole world agrees, it'll be too late.

0 Replies

Bush has just announced the solution we are going to move to the moon and to Mars.

Permit me to digress but we have billions for IMO useless projects while we are unable or unwilling to spend on efforts to find alternate and polution free forms of energy. I guess that effort will come when we are no longer able to breath or we run out of fossil fuels.

0 Replies

last week i was running in shorts and the temp ws 75. I woke up this morning and we are covered in snow and, for this part of the world anyway, it's cold as a well digger's ass.

I've been living here 24 years, and we've had the goofiest weather lately I've seen. Something's going on, but as GWB says the answer to global warming is easy, just turn up the air conditioner. No biggie right guys?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

Unfortunately , less than half of scientists in the areas of meteology, climatics, geophysics, geography agree with the cause and effect relationship that Mr Blairs scientist staes 'Is obvious

As far as I know, this occurs to less than half of the US-scientists only.

Here is another article re this subject, talked about today as well in European media:

Quote:

The Diseases of Global Warming
by Paul R. Epstein

Today few scientists doubt that Earth's atmosphere is warming. Most also agree that the rate of heating is accelerating and that the consequences could become increasingly disruptive. Even schoolchildren can recite some projected outcomes: oceans will warm and glaciers will melt, causing sea levels to rise and salt water to inundate low-lying coastal areas. Regions suitable for farming will shift.

But less familiar effects of global warming--namely, serious human medical disorders--are no less worrisome. Many are already upon us.

Most directly, global warming is projected to double the number of deaths related to heat waves by 2020. Prolonged heat can increase smog and the dispersal of allergens, causing respiratory symptoms.

Global warming also boosts the frequency and intensity of floods and droughts. Such disasters not only cause death by drowning or starvation, but also damage crops and make them vulnerable to infection and infestations by pests and choking weeds, thereby contributing to food shortages and malnutrition. They displace entire populations, leading to overcrowding and associated diseases, such as tuberculosis.

Developing countries--where resources to prevent and treat infectious diseases are scarce--are most vulnerable to other infectious diseases associated with climate change as well. But advanced nations, too, can fall victim to surprise attack--as happened last year when the first outbreak of West Nile virus in North America killed seven New Yorkers. International commerce and travel enable infectious diseases to strike continents away from their sources.

Of course, not all the human health consequences of global warming may be bad. Very high temperatures in hot regions may reduce snail populations, which have a role in transmitting schistosomiasis, a parasitic disease. High winds--caused by parching of the earth's surface--may disperse pollution. Warmer winters in normally chilly areas may reduce cold-related heart attacks and respiratory ailments.

Overall, however, the undesirable effects of more variable and extreme weather are likely to overshadow any benefits.

Diseases relayed by mosquitoes--malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and several kinds of encephalitis--are eliciting particularly grave concern as the world warms. These disorders are projected to become increasingly prevalent because cold weather limits mosquitoes to seasons and regions with certain minimum temperatures.

Extreme heat also limits mosquito survival. But within their survivable range of temperatures, mosquitoes proliferate faster and bite more as the air becomes warmer. Greater heat also speeds the rate at which pathogens inside them reproduce and mature. The immature malaria parasite takes 26 days to develop fully at 68 degrees F, but only 13 days at 77 degrees F. The Anopheles mosquitoes that spread malaria live only several weeks, so warmer temperatures enable more parasites to mature in time for the mosquitoes to transfer the infection.

As whole areas heat up, mosquitoes enter formerly forbidden territories, bringing illness with them, while causing more disease for longer periods in the areas they already inhabit. Malaria has already returned to the Korean peninsula, and parts of the US, southern Europe and the former Soviet Union have experienced small outbreaks. Some models project that by the end of this century, the zone of potential malaria transmission will contain about 60% of the world's population, up from 45% now.

Similarly, Dengue (or "breakbone") fever--a severe flu-like viral illness that can cause fatal internal bleeding--has broadened its range in the Americas over the past 10 years, reaching down to Buenos Aires by the end of the 1990's. (It has also found its way to northern Australia.) Today it afflicts an estimated 50-100 million people in the tropics and subtropics.

These outbreaks, of course, cannot be traced conclusively to global warming. Other factors--declines in mosquito-control and other public health programs, or rising drug and pesticide resistance--could be involved. But the case for a climatic cause becomes stronger when outbreaks coincide with other projected consequences of global warming.

Such is the case in the world's highlands. In the 19th century, European colonists in Africa settled in the cooler mountains to escape the dangerous swamp air ("mal aria") in the lowlands. Today many of those havens are compromised. As anticipated, warmth is climbing up many mountains. Since 1970, the elevation at which temperatures are always below freezing has ascended almost 500 feet in the tropics. Insect-borne infections are being reported at high elevations in South and Central America, Asia, and east and central Africa.

More droughts and floods due to global warming will also probably fuel outbreaks of water-borne diseases. Paradoxically, droughts can favor water-borne diseases--including cholera, a cause of severe diarrhea--by wiping out supplies of safe drinking water, concentrating contaminants, and preventing good hygiene. Lack of clean water also limits safe rehydration of diarrhea or fever sufferers.

Floods, meanwhile, wash sewage and fertilizer into water supplies, triggering expansive blooms of harmful algae that are either directly toxic to humans, or contaminate the fish and shellfish that humans consume.

The human health toll taken by global warming will depend to a large extent on us. Effective surveillance of climate conditions and of the emergence or resurgence of infectious diseases (or their carriers) should be a global priority, as should providing preventive measures and treatments to at-risk populations.

But we must also limit human activities that contribute to atmospheric heating, or that exacerbate its effects. Little doubt remains that burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming by spewing carbon dioxide and other heat-absorbing, or "greenhouse," gases into the air. Analysis of tree rings identifies fossil fuels as the source of the 30% increase in greenhouse gases over pre-industrial levels. Cleaner energy sources must be adopted, while forests and wetlands must be preserved and restored to absorb carbon dioxide, and to absorb floodwaters and filter contaminants before they reach water supplies.

None of this will come cheap. But humanity will pay a far dearer price for inaction.

Paul R. Epstein is Associate Director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School.

SOURCE

0 Replies

yep.

we're just as bad as the US - only cos there are so few of us, it doesn't add up to much -

0 Replies

Lets see, the U.S is responsible for a little over 20% of the worlds Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GGE) and produces 21% of the worlds Gross World Product.

China produces 16.5% of the worlds GGE and produces 12% of the worlds GWP.

Russia produces 5.9% of the worlds GGE and produces 2.6% of the worlds GWP.

So the emissions for the U.S. sound about right to me. Why should the United States be forced to cut back it's emissions when other nations are not held to any appreciable standards.

0 Replies

Global Warming Theory Faces Real-World
Test ... And Loses[/u]
by Gunter Lorne
Publication Date: Thu 3/1/2001

For two weeks last fall, 170 national delegations met in the Netherlands to negotiate how to implement 1997`s Kyoto global warming accord.
The dealing came to naught, however, when the United States, Canada, and Australia refused to go along with European demands regarding the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions to below 1990 levels. The sticking point was not so much whether to reduce, or how much to reduce, but, more precisely, how to credit countries with their reductions.

Predictably, this was reported as a refusal by the U.S. to do the right thing. The noble Europeans--deeply committed to environmental protection, we are told--could not budge those big, bad Yanks who refused to do what is best for our planet. The whole high-and-mighty debate, though, came down to sinks: carbon sinks.

Emissions versus sinks
While the U.S. is the world`s No. 1 producer of carbon dioxide, it is not the No. 1 net producer. Ditto Canada and Australia. The title of No. 1 emitter of CO2 belongs to the European Union, which lacks North America`s and Australia`s carbon sinks: natural mechanisms, such as forests, that absorb carbon dioxide from the environment.
The U.S., and to a lesser degree both Canada and Australia, wanted compliance with the Kyoto goals to be based on net emissions (total emissions less carbon sinks). The Europeans demanded compliance based almost entirely on total emissions, with little or no credit for sinks.

The "total emissions-based" method would, not surprisingly, have placed a great burden on the Europeans` major trading rival, the U.S., giving the EU an enormous competitive advantage. The U.S. would be required to retool its industrial base at a potential cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. That cost would be passed along to customers of U.S. industry, or onto the backs of its own workers in the form of layoffs, further crippling the country`s competitive position.

So much for the Europeans` selfless, virtuous motives.

Using sinks to measure Kyoto compliance makes sense. Even if one buys the dubious global warming science (and I do not), it is not total CO2 emissions, but rather net emissions, that are forcing climate change. Demanding the total emissions standard makes sense only if your goal is to cripple a rival economically (as is the Europeans` goal), or to tear down free-market societies generally (as is the environmentalists` goal).

Science doubts CO2`s role
There is now legitimate skepticism over the part played by carbon dioxide in any warming that might be occurring. In August 2000, NASA scientist James Hansen--father of the modern global warming scare--backed away from the notion that CO2 is the principal culprit in climate change, suggesting instead that methane and soot might be more responsible.
And now, in Britain`s Nature magazine, Canadian researcher Jan Veizer reports the results of a five-year, $700,000 study of the historic record of carbon dioxide and global temperature rise. He concludes, "atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were not the principal driver of climate variability."

Predictably, Veizer`s work was attacked even before it was published. Critics charge he failed to account sufficiently for continental drift over the past 500 million years, or for large amounts of ice drifting in the oceans during ice ages acting like ice cubes in a giant cocktail, cooling the oceans while CO2 may have warmed the air above.

Veizer accounted for these factors and many more, however. His critics seem mainly concerned with losing their bogey man, rather than with learning the truth about greenhouse warming.

A theory built on envy
Let`s call carbon dioxide the capitalist gas. Its production in large amounts is a sign a country is prosperous, that its industries are booming and its citizens consuming. And it is envy of that success, of that wealth, more than concern for the environment, that has fired up many greenhouse theorists from the start.
Tearing down the U.S., hobbling the free market, making the so-called "rich" of the world pay their so-called "fair share," has always been the agenda behind the efforts of many greenhouse theory adherents. Now that the science is less supportive of that theory, expect greenhouse devotees (who until recently trumpeted the research) to begin to attack it, often in the most outrageous and irrational manners.

All along, for many (though not all) of the greenhouse believers, scientists and otherwise, the fight has been about the badness of the marketplace versus the goodness of government. It will always be about this fight. Even as the scientific basis for the pro-government side is being pulled out from under them, they will cling to their goal: To replace the forces of free exchange among individuals with the brute force of state planning.

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

Lets see, the U.S is responsible for a little over 20% of the worlds Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GGE) and produces 21% of the worlds Gross World Product.

China produces 16.5% of the worlds GGE and produces 12% of the worlds GWP.

Russia produces 5.9% of the worlds GGE and produces 2.6% of the worlds GWP.

So the emissions for the U.S. sound about right to me. Why should the United States be forced to cut back it's emissions when other nations are not held to any appreciable standards.

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

Why should the United States be forced to cut back it's emissions when other nations are not held to any appreciable standards.

Because the US is the greatest polluter in terms of volume (and how much the US produces is of precious little interest to the rest of teh world. Heck they'd be perfectly happy if it were halved) and because the US is more technologically advanced and has the means to do so where developing countries have less of said ability.

In any case I think China and Russia should be held to said standards as well. But that does not reflect on the US. compare it to the fact that I think criminals should not commit crime yet their crimes do not justify mine.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Because the US is the greatest polluter in terms of volume (and how much the US produces is of precious little interest to the rest of teh world. Heck they'd be perfectly happy if it were halved) and because the US is more technologically advanced and has the means to do so where developing countries have less of said ability.

Look at how many products the world uses that are made in the United States and you will see how much of the GWP (Gross World Production) benefits countries other than the States. A significant portion of the United States production is shipped to OTHER countries. Think about how much heavy equipment, vehicles, and countless other products that bear the logo Made in the U.S.A. that get used by people outside this country.

Sounds like a fair exchange to me.

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

Look at how many products the world uses that are made in the United States and you will see how much of the GWP (Gross World Production) benefits countries other than the States. A significant portion of the United States production is shipped to OTHER countries. Think about how much heavy equipment, vehicles, and countless other products that bear the logo Made in the U.S.A. that get used by people outside this country.

Sounds like a fair exchange to me.

It shouldn't. See when we export products it benefits us more so than the people buying it.

For this reason the world has precious little interest in the excuse that we produce a lot. They would be perfectly happy for us to produce less.

0 Replies

As an aside that's also the best argument against some of the measures to curb emissions.

It can have strong economic motivations.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

It shouldn't. See when we export products it benefits us more so than the people buying it.

For this reason the world has precious little interest in the excuse that we produce a lot. They would be perfectly happy for us to produce less.

And so the U.S. should just close down it's factories, put millions of citizens out of work and wreck our economy so that another country can build up its industry and economy and increase its share of GGEs until it replaces the U.S. as the dominant world power ??

To what end I ask you?

Or do you think a 'kinder' and 'gentler' China will be a much better choice as the dominant power in the world ?

0 Replies

Fedral,

See my last post. The economic motivations are a good argument against one-sided measures.

Appeasing the greens will hamper economies. I agree that enviromentalism should not be a means to gain economic advantages.

My ideal would be for Russia and China to have to change their manufacturing as well. Neither nation is nearly as developed as the US so it would be unfair to them (especially China, as China is still a manufacturing economy while the US is moving to services).

But I still support them being included. I think developing nations shoudl be exempt till they are able to take the steps because it's simply impossible for them to comply and there's no telling when it would even enter the realm of possibility for them to do so.

0 Replies

'US climate policy bigger threat to world than terrorism'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know