Donate today and get a free, signed copy of David Sirota's New York Times bestseller The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington
ZoomZoom InZoom OutPrintDiscuss
Views > March 1, 2005

Defeated From the Start

By Brian Cook

The Kyoto Protocol to reduce global warming went into effect on February 16. Ratified by 141 nations, the treaty aims to limit the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases by 5 to 8 percent in 35 industrialized nations by 2012. The United States, which leads the world by releasing 23 percent of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, is not one of those nations. President Bush started a coalition of the unwilling by withdrawing from the pact two months after taking office.

Few scientists dispute the demonstrable phenomenon of global warming, mankind’s contribution to it or its potentially cataclysmic consequences. In 2001, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported the peer-reviewed findings of 2000 climate experts. They noted that the average global surface temperature had risen by .6 degrees Celsius since 1900, and that much of the increase had occurred during the ’90s. Varying computer models forecast that the average surface temperature would increase between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius in the next century.

Rising temperatures, however, are only part of the problem, a fact underscored by a secret Pentagon report on global warming leaked to the London Observer in February 2004. The report warned that temperature increases could cause a substantial rise in natural disasters such as floods, droughts and famines. These, in turn, could engender riots, massive displacement, and warfare as countries vied for rapidly dwindling food and energy resources. “Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,” the report concluded. “Once again, warfare would define human life.”

A slew of recent studies lend credence to the Pentagon’s fears. In October, scientists found that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere jumped by more than 2 parts per million for the second year in a row. While the rise certainly could be an anomaly, Charles Keeling, who began such observations in 1958, said, “It is also possible that it is the beginning of a natural process unprecedented in the record.”

In November, 300 scientists published a multiyear study that found the Arctic was warming twice as fast as the rest of the world. It was this study that prompted Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, to tell a conference on January 22: “We are risking the ability of the human race to survive.” Pachauri’s statements were surprising, as the Bush administration had heavily lobbied for him to lead the IPCC. The previous chairman, Robert Watson, chief scientist of the World Bank, had been replaced at the behest of the United States, after Exxon had written the White House a memo in 2001 urging his ouster for being too “aggressive.”

In the current political constellation, however, it is impossible to be too “aggressive” in combating global warming. Even the Kyoto measures—should they actually be met—are incredibly tame, the equivalent of an alcoholic recognizing his problem and promising to limit his daily intake to a six-pack. (No metaphors outside of suicide by keg stand come to mind for Bush’s solution—industry self-regulation.) Kyoto’s proposed reduction in current emissions by 5 to 8 percent is a fraction of the 50 to 70 percent reduction that the IPCC believes will ultimately be necessary to stanch global warming. This unhappy fact is why even proponents of Kyoto, like Eileen Claussen of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, admit that the protocol’s “greatest value is symbolic.”

Because the inherently destructive nature of corporate capitalism is simply not open for discussion in mainstream circles, similar “symbolic” solutions are routinely proposed for real problems. Within this framework, our choices are always, already false. Democrats timidly tell us: “We can make things a little better.” To which Republicans, like Bush, respond, “Oh yeah? Well, we can always make things worse.”

Brian Cook is an associate editor at In These Times.

More information about Brian Cook
  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    As much as I despise the Bush/Republican approach to environmental issues, they’re really just part of an overall illusory mindset that not just they but Dems, not just Americans but most of the civilized world subscribe to: we can make for ourselves a luxurious (i.e. wasteful and unsustainable) life now and take care of the problems “later”. The only people who haven’t acquired this attitude are societies still live close to the land and interact with natural cycles ongoingly (a tiny fraction of humanity). Kyoto, for instance, does very little to curb greenhouse gas emission from China or India, arguably the two potential biggest sources of pollutants for the coming generation as they continue to develop their economies. Symbolic indeed, and also misleading if the real goal is to safeguard the atmosphere. Short of a new, more realistic way of thinking, which prioritizes stable human population, tightly efficient use of all energy sources, massive reduction/reuse of waste products of all kinds, and parsimonious consumption, the picture for our grandchildren’s generation and beyond is pretty dismal. It’s just more “magical” thinking that avoids looking at measurable cause-effect relationships and puts political expediency (as well as short-term luxury) ahead of sincere, scientific assessment of environmental problems and how they take place. There’s a conundrum here too, though; when the “good things” of life are so concentrated in some places and so sparse in others, how can you ask people with the potential to improve their perceived quality of life to postpone or refuse doing so? They’ll either laugh in your face or say you want to keep all the goodies for yourself. I hope a massive crisis isn’t necessary for humanity to learn these lessons, but I fear it may happen that way…

    Posted by Kuya on Mar 1, 2005 at 7:53 PM

    I’m sorry

    You fear it may happen that way???!!???
    The true “race” of humans
    cannot learn the idea which is before us.
    We continue to follow the history of our true
    nature.
    Being decendant from the same people only makes us
    kill our own kin.
    Who killed Abel?
    Yee-Haw.
    Science can PROVE we are related to each other, but
    so what????
    Just a theory, right???

    The MAJOR religions all recognize MOSES,yet the
    6th commandment means nothing.

    We are one of the few species on the planet that
    kill each other not for food.

    And so what???
    No one cares to stop this.
    “Kill Them all and let god sort’em out”
    Casualties of War.
    If you are not with us
    you are against us.

    Your perspective depends on your proximity to
    Mathew Hale(the far right) or the Libertarians
    (far left)

    Let’s vote to keep everything going
    coz this is the best that’s ever been
    and the best that will ever beee..

    “The masters tools will never destroy the Masters
    House.”

    Posted by R.B.Green on Mar 2, 2005 at 5:46 AM

    ???

    Thanks for your response I guess, RBG, but truthfully, I can’t go with the “humans are inherently trash, destined to fuck themselves” hypothesis. Sorry, call me biased, but the Original Sin and Vicious Learning-Disabled Ape models just don’t fly with me. Can’t help thinking there’s at least a slim chance we’ll get the clue before we screw ourselves irreversibly.

    Wish I could say there’s nothing to support your view, but we both know better, eh?. Still…

    I suppose it’s my pathological optimism. May peace be with you, though. Shine on.

    Posted by Kuya on Mar 2, 2005 at 4:51 PM

    Ok we all know the Kyoto is not perfect, but for the administration to site as its #1 reason not to join, was it wouldn’t affect Africa and developing countries. Oh No!! Africa’s emmissions are going to kill us all. PLEASE! Kyoto is symbolic, and that’s the reason the US needed to stay involved. But no, anything Clinton did, Bush must reverse it. There is no way for the world to jump right to the 50-80% reduction needed without first testing the waters(warmer). Bush has takken it upon himself to ruin the world for everyone but the haves and the have mores. Shucks, who cares that Bangeledesh and the Maldives will disappear. They aren’t in his news. An ignoramus with the power! That’s just what the world needed for four more years.

    Posted by skip on Mar 2, 2005 at 5:54 PM

    By the way, Kuya BAAAA!

    Posted by skip on Mar 2, 2005 at 5:57 PM
  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 10 posts.

Join Here
Member Login

Forgot password?

Article Appeared in this Issue

Full contents
Past issues

Also by Brian Cook
  • Joys of ‘The Wire’
    Some critics have called HBO's hit series 'depressing' and 'nihilistic.' They couldn't be more wrong.
  • Blackwater Nation
    Contracting soldiers of fortune is only one example of our recent philosophy of government
  • The Kids Aren’t Alright
    Daniel Brook's The Trap reminds us that inequality is bad for everyone, rich and poor
  • Death from Above
    For the Iraqi people, the surge in U.S. troops has meant more bombs dropping from the sky and a surge in deaths
  • Not Neutrality
    Why are the Communications Workers of America opting out of the Save the Internet coalition?
  • The Spychopath Who Loved Me

Donate now
and get a
free, signed copy
of David Sirota's New York Times bestseller The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington

Popular Discussions