Last December, representatives of 160 countries met in Kyoto, Japan to discuss the possibility of global climate change brought about by human activities. Their intention was to determine what the available data meant and to make recommendations for action. What ensued was an intense debate involving a bit of hard data, computer-modeled scenarios for the future climate, a lot of suppositions and fear on all sides and eventually, the formation of a treaty.
No one disagrees that concentrations of greenhouse gases (gases which hold heat from the sun in the atmosphere) have increased steadily since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The debate enters because there is uncertainty about whether these increases have affected or will affect global climate. It is incredibly difficult to model something as complicated as global weather patterns. If it weren't, the weather guy on Channel Two wouldn't be wrong half the time. Because of the uncertainty, there are those who say that increases in greenhouse gases will cause global warming. This would mean a drastic change in global weather patterns, and a rise in sea levels that would swamp many coastal areas (New York City, the Netherlands ... ). Then there are those who say nothing will happen or that global warming would actually be a good thing.
In spite of uncertainties and bickering, a treaty was drafted. It essentially states two things: 1) 30 developed countries will reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2010. 2) All countries will periodically report their emission levels. This treaty was hailed as a victory by possibly only the Clinton administration and probably because they had nothing else positive to point to. Environmental NGOs greeted the treaty as being too little too late, while energy-intensive industries such as agriculture, mining and petrochemicals are up in arms, claiming it will be the death of the U.S. economy and that it violates our sovereignty. A final problem with the treaty is that developing states such as Mexico and China are exempt despite their being large, greenhouse-producing nations. With U.S. union, industry and agricultural interests all united against the treaty, Congress announced it as dead from its inception.
Now I would like to look at the positive side of this treaty and why, in some (though few) ways, it is potentially effective. In the industrial sector, greenhouse gases are primarily produced by combustion of fossil fuels. The only way to produce less gas is to burn less fuel. That will require more efficient uses of energy in everything we do and possibly the use of more alternative energies. This will force us to technologically overhaul our nation. While this statement is generally met with howls of "What about the costs?" and "What about the economy?," there is a good side to it.
What makes our economy so strong is not simply the control of resources, it is the control of ideas. Great ideas and inventions have propelled us to superpower status. Finding new ways to power our country will hurt some industries, but it will also create new industries. As an example, the Clean Air Act caused a revolution in steel production in the 1970s. Initially, there were high costs to change manufacturing processes, but the result was not only a cleaner industry, it was a much more efficient one. Edison was right -- necessity truly is the mother of invention.
A byproduct of burning less fuel will be an overall reduction in air pollution. Less air pollution means a healthier population with fewer respiratory problems. It also means less crop damage, as air pollution is one of the top sources of crop damage, and reductions in yields. Increased crop yields will help to feed a rapidly growing planet and will help in a small way to offset the costs of lowering agricultural emissions of greenhouse gases.
Fossil fuels are a finite resource. At some time within the indefinite future, there aren't going to be any more. Though this may not occur for another century, by beginning to convert our economy now, we avoid the sudden shock of simply running out and not having the infrastructure in place to deal with such an event. Changes come much smoother if they are implemented over time.
The main argument against the treaty is that there simply is not conclusive evidence supporting the occurrence of global warming. Of course, it was also not conclusively proven that smoking causes cancer until last year. Yes, the view ahead is murky at best, and we really don't know what will happen decades from now. We must ask ourselves whether we are willing to risk global warming; if we are willing to maintain the status quo and hope for the best. That is what is best about the climate change treaty. It brings these issues to the fore, and even if it is not ratified by enough countries to be effective, it forces us to consider issues of long-range planning and environmental change at a global level.
