Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Bali: World Suckered by the U.S. Once Again

By George Monbiot, Comment Is Free. Posted December 17, 2007.


America will keep on wrecking climate talks as long as those with vested interests in oil and gas fund its political system.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by George Monbiot

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

“After 11 days of negotiations, governments have come up with a compromise deal that could even lead to emission increases. The highly compromised political deal is largely attributable to the position of the United States, which was heavily influenced by fossil fuel and automobile industry interests. The failure to reach agreement led to the talks spilling over into an all-night session."

These are extracts from a press release by Friends of the Earth. So what? Well it was published on December 11 - I mean to say, December 11 1997. The US had just put a wrecking ball through the Kyoto protocol. George Bush was innocent; he was busy executing prisoners in Texas. Its climate negotiators were led by Albert Arnold Gore.

The European Union had asked for greenhouse gas cuts of 15% by 2010. Gore's team drove them down to 5.2% by 2012. Then the Americans did something worse: they destroyed the whole agreement.

Most of the other governments insisted that the cuts be made at home. But Gore demanded a series of loopholes big enough to drive a Hummer through. The rich nations, he said, should be allowed to buy their cuts from other countries. When he won, the protocol created an exuberant global market in fake emissions cuts. The western nations could buy "hot air" from the former Soviet Union. Because the cuts were made against emissions in 1990, and because industry in that bloc had subsequently collapsed, the former Soviet Union countries would pass well below the bar. Gore's scam allowed them to sell the gases they weren't producing to other nations. He also insisted that rich nations could buy nominal cuts from poor ones. Entrepreneurs in India and China have made billions by building factories whose primary purpose is to produce greenhouse gases, so that carbon traders in the rich world will pay to clean them up.

The result of this sabotage is that the market for low-carbon technologies has remained moribund. Without an assured high value for carbon cuts, without any certainty that government policies will be sustained, companies have continued to invest in the safe commercial prospects offered by fossil fuels rather than gamble on a market without an obvious floor.

By ensuring that the rich nations would not make real cuts, Gore also guaranteed that the poor ones scoffed when we asked them to do as we don't. When George Bush announced, in 2001, that he would not ratify the Kyoto protocol, the world cursed and stamped its foot. But his intransigence affected only the US. Gore's team ruined it for everyone.

The destructive power of the American delegation is not the only thing that hasn't changed. After the Kyoto protocol was agreed, the then British environment secretary, John Prescott, announced: "This is a truly historic deal which will help curb the problems of climate change. For the first time it commits developed countries to make legally binding cuts in their emissions." Ten years later, the current environment secretary, Hilary Benn, told us that "this is an historic breakthrough and a huge step forward. For the first time ever, all the world's nations have agreed to negotiate on a deal to tackle dangerous climate change." Do these people have a chip inserted?

In both cases, the US demanded terms that appeared impossible for the other nations to accept. Before Kyoto, the other negotiators flatly rejected Gore's proposals for emissions trading. So his team threatened to sink the talks. The other nations capitulated, but the US still held out on technicalities until the very last moment, when it suddenly appeared to concede. In 1997 and in 2007 it got the best of both worlds: it wrecked the treaty and was praised for saving it.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: bush, global warming, bali, climate change

George Monbiot is the author Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning. Read more of his writings at Monbiot.com. This article originally appeared in the Guardian.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A couple of quibbles
Posted by: mwildfire on Dec 17, 2007 10:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like Monbiot's pieces, but I do have a couple of quibbles with this one: first, citing Fox News to prove that MSM in the US can't be taken seriously is hardly fair. Other networks are at least mentioning climate change now. Nonetheless, he's quite right that the media are at the heart of what's wrong. And this is where my other quibble comes in. He says until we get campaign finance reform we won't solve this problem--or any other problem for that matter. But the problem of the corruption in our politics and the problem of the corruption of corporate media are so intertwined that this is a daunting--perhaps an impossible--task. How could we possibly get our legislative bodies--all the members of which are doing very well with the current, corrupt system, thank you very much--to vote in the policy changes we need? Perhaps we'd have a chance if there were a well-organized campaign with a lot of help from the media. But the media are the main recipients of all that candidate cash--they don't want to change anything. Forcing the media to give free air-time or page space on an equal basis to candidates at specified times prior to an election would be a reasonable price for the airwaves we gave them for free, and it would open up elections to non-corporate contenders. But how could you possibly get THAT idea past the MSM gatekeepers?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A couple of quibbles Posted by: Phr2
bingo !
Posted by: saltoafronteira on Dec 17, 2007 1:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think you got straight into the heart of the matter.
Kyoto was fake, bali is fake.
Low carbon or no carbon technologies should become a life or dead matter. If conventional means doesn't work, why dont you use amercia's own sistem, as I said in another comment ?
It may seem idiotic, but why dont you try to create popular corporations, one gives one hundred dollars, the other one hundred dollars. You create a sistem of checks and balances for the boarding not to run off course and start the big energy game. If the technologies are there to catch, if they may soon be competitive, if they dont start on only because the government supporter corporations dont want them, create your own alternative corporations or sometinhg else. You have the brains, with effort you can have the money, with belief you will have the guts.
Damn it ! Where is your spirit? Wake up Americans. 80 % of your people sleeps in ignorance, the other 20% must have the spirit, the crative power. You are still a young Nation, go for it. Beat them on their own field.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Trade is supposed to be mutually beneficial.
Posted by: Sojourner on Dec 18, 2007 2:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When it comes to climate change, we are certainly mutually in danger.

Monboit is correct about the degree to which the American politicians are in the pockets of Big Energy. I should be surprised to learn it is any different in Britain.

The US and Britain have accepted the debt that has allowed China and the rest of the developing world to prosper. Asking them now to accept limits on the effluence that results from their new affluence seems reasonable.

It is certainly pointless to negotiate at a treaty conference for standards that will never be ratified. Yes, we are stuck with a nutcase, so long as Bush remains in office.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The extinction of Homo Sap will put an end to coal mining
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 18, 2007 11:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great damage has been done, but we still have 8 years before natural positive
feedbacks lead to our extinction. Sea level will continue to rise even if we
disappear right now, but that is "minor" compared to poison gas bubbling out of
the ocean and killing almost everything.
See the chart on page 274 of "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. We have until 2015
to BEGIN REDUCING our total CO2 output and we have until 2050 to actually
reduce our CO2 output by 90%. The curve has to start down by 2015, not we
have to think about it by then. The peak of our CO2 production has to happen in
the next 8 years. Sorry, but we can't wait for research, no matter how interesting.
We have to implement what we know right now. The only technology we have
right now to replace coal fired power plants is nuclear power plants. I like solar,
wind, hydro, and geothermal, but all of them together cannot replace the base load
capacity of coal. Sorry, but nuclear is the only option. If we don't follow the
schedule in Six Degrees, we will encounter positive feedbacks which will take the
control of the climate out of our hands. Civilization may fall anyway well before
2050, but we can avoid going extinct by 2100. We have to hold the CO2 level to
400 parts per million to have a 75% chance of avoiding the positive feedbacks.
The natural positive feedbacks are explained in Six Degrees.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]