On July third David Cracknell and David Smith of "The Sunday Times" reported that, "senior government officials are confident that President Bush will sign up to a G8 statement on climate change at the summit in Scotland this week. British officials say that although the US president is unlikely to commit to any tangible measures to clamp down on carbon emissions, he may agree to a communiqué declaring that the problem of climate change is a "reality" that must be addressed by the leading industrialised nations." Other British newspapers reported similar rumors. However, we were also informed that there was still "a lot of work to be done." It was feared that Jacques Chirac, the French president, could spoil the agreement by declaring that the Kyoto treaty on climate change (which the Americans refused to sign) must be the sole basis for action.
Another British paper called the debate over climate change "certain to become the most divisive issue at the Gleneagles summit." This time, the Americans "are fighting back." Bush's judgment has been simply, that while the impact of climate change remains unclear, we should not risk stability of the global economy by cutting back on energy use.
President Bush clearly spelled out his view in a landmark speech he made last week: the only way to cut pollution - while ensuring that development can continue - is for private firms to come up with inventive new solutions to sell to the world. "The best way to help nations develop while limiting pollution and improving public health is to promote energy generating technologies that are clean, affordable and secure," he declared. "Some have suggested the best solution to environmental challenges and climate change is to oppose development and put the world on an energy diet. But at this moment about two billion people have no access to any form of modern energy. Blocking that access would condemn them to permanent poverty, disease, high infant mortality, polluted water and polluted air. We're taking a better approach."
This, according to the Americans, is far more "honest" than the European model, and is based on hard-nosed reality. Meanwhile it became obvious, that the EU-15 will not succeed in collectively reducing "greenhouse gas" emissions to 8% below 1990 levels, as agreed in the EU - "burden sharing agreement." (http://www.climnet.org/resources/euburden.htm) following Kyoto. In the words of Chris Horner, Senior Research Fellow of CFACT Europe, "Take out 'one off' political decisions by the UK and Germany of switching from coal to gas (a Thatcher swipe at the unions) and closing inefficient eastern capacity (both of which preceded and are completely unrelated to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol) and Europe projects it will violate this treaty by 24% per year."
At the same time, a conflict between G8-nations various academies of sciences is escalating following a "Joint Science Academies Statement" emphasizing a "consensus" of these academies on climate change issues. As Dr. Benny Peiser, editor of the scholarly electronic network CCNet, tells us: "We are learning that the much-hyped "consensus" of the G-8 (plus 3) Science Academies is not solid. In a Letter to The Scientist (SFS/7/1/2005) I pointed out that the press release from the Royal Society (London) gives the impression of unanimity about need for action to stem global warming. But on July 1 a group of Russian academicians with climate expertise called on the president of the Russian Academy of Science to withdraw his unauthorized signature from a Climate Statement that had been initiated by the Royal Society."
According to the same report of RIA Novosti "Russian scientists said they still considered the Kyoto protocol was scientifically ungrounded and would be an ineffective way to try to achieve the aim of the UN convention on climate change."
The debated "statement" had been engineered by Lord Robert May, President of the Royal Society. The same maneuver a couple of years ago failed. This time, the President of the National Academy of Sciences Bruce Albert went along with it, but his term expired on June 30. However, in an e-mail to Dr. Peiser he states, "But we definitely did not approve the Royal Society press release, and I have sent a letter to Bob May expressing my dismay at his misleading and political statements there."
Dr. Peiser's response to this, "It's quite a feat for Lord May to antagonize both the Russian and the U.S. National Academies of Sciences. I'm afraid this is the prize he is paying for dabbling in political tomfoolery. The repute of the Royal Society and its integrity has suffered accordingly, while the political crusade orchestrated by climate alarmists will simply fall on deaf ears at the G8 summit. It would appear that all the apocalyptic shouting and screaming has come to nothing."
|
|
