Environmental ministers and cabinet officials from more than 160 countries attended a UN-sponsored summit on climate change in Bonn. It seems that a last-minute compromise at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP6) has isolated the Bush administration even further on the issue of the Kyoto Protocol.
This impression is far-fetched, despite the hand-wringing by pundits. In the first instance, not one industrialized country and only a dozen developing countries have so far ratified the protocol. And under the current deal, the global cut in emissions will only be about one-third of the original goal for reducing greenhouse gas output by the largest industrialized nations. Once brought into force, the Kyoto Protocol, as envisioned in 1997, would install a compliance system based on specific targets for cutting emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.
Industrialized countries would be required to cut greenhouse gas emissions to an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. For the US, this would mean cuts of about 20 percent from present levels. To become effective, the Kyoto Protocol (also known as COP3) needs to be ratified by 55 countries that account for most of the industrialized world's emssions. In the end, Japan sided with many of the other countries to reach a compromise agreement promoted by the EU.
Not surprisingly, the final agreement involved considerable compromises, including substantial European concessions to Japan that was seeking a softening of the approach on compliance mechanisms. The EU also conceded to Japan, Canada, Russia and others on using "sinks" to aid industrialized countries reduce carbon dioxide and other types of greenhouse gases. Sinks result from forest-management techniques wherein trees absorb carbon dioxide. It also includes a funding package to aid developing countries in adapting to climate change
Much is made of that many climate experts agree with the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) set up by the World Meteorological Organization and UN Environment Program. Three of the panel's recent reports cover the science of climate change, its impact and the technologies and policies needed to combat it. Their most recent conclusion is that temperatures could rise by between 1.4C and 5.8C this century, a shift from the 1995 prediction of an increase of 1C to 3.5C.
There seems to be an instinct for opinion makers to accept the worst case when it comes to global warming. However, evidence that the science on this issue remains unsettled is found in the panel's admission that there are gaps in scientific understanding. Consequently, the panel's forecasts may be apocryphal, despite the apocalyptic tone. Despite this evidence of unresolved scientific issues, critics of global warming tend to be ignored by the general public and often vilified or ridiculed by the media. Perhaps the most damning criticism is that impressions of a worsening outlook for global warming were caused by a change in the panel's methodology. Instead of reflecting improvements in scientific knowledge, much of the increase is explained by the fact that newer computer simulations include a wider range of scenarios relating to demographic, and technological developments.
Without scientific consensus, the economic costs relating to implementation of the Kyoto Protocol are also hard to figure. How much this would cost depends upon assumptions about technological advances and the use of mechanisms included in the protocol that allow emission cuts to be made at the lowest possible cost. According to the panel, implementation of the Kyoto Protocol could cost as little as 0.1 percent and as much as 2 percent of GDP in different regions in 2010.
In terms of public opinion, too many people unfortunately remember headlines or sound bites that unambiguously support the global warming mantra. Concerned citizens who wish to have a more balanced view might wish to consider some of the following observations. During recent decades, an increasingly proportion of land-based measurements were made inside urban "heat islands" or at airports. Not surprisingly, those taken outside these areas indicate less warming over the past 60 years. Most of the warming that was recorded during the 20th century occurred after what is known as the "little ice age." Satellite data and Weather Balloon Radiosonde measurements do not indicate any warming of the atmosphere over the last 20 years.
Anecdotal reports that global warming has caused a thinning of polar ice are not supported by evidence. Observed changes in the thickness of Arctic ice seem to be cyclical in nature. Most of the scientific literature on Antarctic ice sheets apparently indicates that there are complex factors affecting these sheets that are poorly understood.
When I have cited these observations to individuals who feel concerned and informed about global warming, they express surprise that they have never seen counter arguments. They also question disbelief that scientists might be withholding information and are skeptical that they have a motive to behave dishonestly. It is easy to overlook the fact that pro-Kyoto climatologists have a conflict of interest in that they can benefit from grants associated with research into global warming.
Politicians also jump onto the bandwagon of the gravy train for public monies. The rest of us are not innocent bystanders in all this. We need to be better armed against self-serving scientists and tax-hungry politicians. We would all benefit if there were less hot air and toxic rhetoric about global climate issues.
Christopher Lingle is Global Strategist for eConoLytics.com
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry