The following points are my ramblings on the issue:
1. The globe is increasing in temperature due to human activity, evidenced over the last 50 years, and potentially since the onset of the industrial revolution. Indeed there is enough evidence that by rights, we should be in a period of global cooling if it wasn?t for human intervention.
2. We do not know what the environmental consequences of all of this will be. Whilst it is likely to result in increased sea levels, on a regional scale we just don?t know. There is a body of evidence to suggest that global sea currents could be dramatically altered and some areas dramatically rise in local temperatures while other areas cool dramatically, but it is in generally speculation. However, when you hear on the tv that the local storm that took your roof off was from the greenhouse, that is likely to be rubbish. Unfortunately we wont know the real consequences until they have already occurred, and most of the consequences will be for future generations.
3. There is no evidence to suggest that increased environmental conditions impose a long-term economic burden on society. Society already has done an enormous amount. We phased out lead in petrol. We are now removing MTBE from petrol.
We have banned a host of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. We have banned freon and other CFCs. We have imposed stricter waste regulations and encouraged recycling. There are restrictions on the use of thousands of chemicals. We have developed occupational and environmental health based exposure limits on the use of almost every single substance we come into contact with.
Did people kick up a fuss at the time? Of course some industry did.
Who implemented all these things? Most of the leadership has come from the US ? via the EPA and state based regulators which has then been adopted by other countries. All of these things were said to come at a cost to industry - but they don?t, because industry can adapt readily and change. In fact, all of these things come at a net benefit to society. People live longer and are healthier, and think of all the peripheral industries - waste companies, consultants (like me) redevelopment and urban renewal etc ? in fact Kyoto could actually mean MORE jobs (long term).
4. What the Kyoto debate is about is basically a sibling fight between Europe and America to say that ?he gets more than I do, and I want to be able to swap my marbles for his?. Bush acknowledges that something must be done by the mere fact that he has come up with something alternative. Most of the western world believes that the time has come to encourage only sustainable development and energy use. Is it right that an African child worrying about what they are going to eat the next day has to suffer? No, of course not, so western countries, and in particular America, must take the initiative and not use them as a poor excuse.
5. The only reason the original Kyoto agreement wasn?t signed by America was not because it would cost Americans jobs - in fact, it would probably generate a large amount of employment in the implementation - but because of vested interests. Lets be honest, even Shell and BP Amoco recognise the greenhouse effect and are spending billions on new renewable energies, but some American companies have a vested financial interest in the status quo. Americans are leaders at the development and implementation of new technologies that will enhance and modernise economies ? the only thorn in this side is from weak leadership controlled by vested interests instead of visionary leadership controlled by pragmatists.
[This message has been edited by zoomerang II (edited 02-18-2002).]