il punto sui negoziati dell'Aja

["AlessandroGimona"<agimona@libero.it>]

Cari tutti,

come potete leggere sotto gli USA non vogliono ridurre sistanzialmente 
le emissioni di gas serra. Questo rischia di far fallire i negoziati e 
di causare danni ambientali e socio-economici (a se stessi e soprattutto  
ad altri paesi) molto seri nei prossimi decenni.

Articolo apparso domenica sull'observer (in pratica e' il Guardian 
domenicale) 

Squabbles as America fights to avoid reducing emissions
     http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/111900-02.htm
by Robin McKie at The Hague


potete trovare un ulteriore prospettiva in un articolo dell' Independent 
di ieri
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/112000-01.htm

spero ineterssi

Alessandro Gimona



It took a surprisingly short time to sandbag the Hague yesterday. In
only two hours, environmentalists managed to surround the city's great
conference centre with a 5ft wall made up of 50,000 sacks filled with
soil and grit.

The activists - some from Latvia and Estonia, a few from Japan, several
coach-loads from Britain and hundreds from other nations - had gathered
to lay siege to the building in which diplomats and civil servants were
trying to thrash out ground rules for limiting global warming. It was a
manoeuvre replete with irony.

Rising industrial emissions of carbon dioxide are now heating the world
alarmingly, say scientists, and are accelerating natural climatic
warming, threatening to melt ice caps and flood low-lying areas. Hence
the sandbag, a particularly potent symbol in climate-vulnerable Holland.

However, the real eyebrow-raiser was the speed of the Friends of the
Earth stunt which contrasted starkly with the lumbering negotiations
that have been taking place within the convention centre. For the past
week, delegates have been trying to hammer out a framework for a
climate-saving deal that their ministerial bosses can then knock into
shape when they arrive tomorrow.

There have been few signs they are going to succeed. Despite evidence
that the greenhouse effect is now at its strongest for 20 million years,
that Europe's growing season has lengthened by 11 days in the past
century and that scientists are predicting all Arctic ice will have
disappeared by 2080, delegates remain obsessed with the minutiae of
conference protocol. As one leading UK negotiator put it: 'This could
turn out to be the most important conference in human history, yet all
we get is haggling over trivia.'

These squabbles threaten to erupt into full-scale war, particularly
between the United States and Europe, which began an alarming exchange
of insults late last week. One European Union statement even accused the
Americans of 'threatening the integrity' of the entire climate change
convention.

At heart, the problem is simple: how can the world halt the global
warming that is increasing global temperatures, sea levels and climatic
instability? At the Kyoto environment summit three years ago, the
industrialised nations agreed, in principle, to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions to a figure 7 per cent below their 1990 output. Unfortunately,
no one has been able to agree how to achieve this, or even to ratify the
Kyoto summit. That is the purpose of the Hague summit.

The prime problem is America, the world's greatest emitter of carbon
dioxide, which presses, with increasing insistence, that it should be
spared from reducing its output and should instead be allowed to create
new forests, both in the US and the Third World. These trees and plants,
known collectively as carbon sinks, will soak up all that nasty carbon
dioxide, say US delegates, and will obviate the need for Americans to
abandon their profligacy.

The US also believes that by planting crops specially designed to soak
up carbon dioxide, it could extend its 'sink' philosophy from the wild
to the farmyard, thus strengthening its case for unabated industrial
emissions. It was this idea, introduced at the Hague last week, that
provoked that outburst of fury by Europe's delegates.

Other US agricultural innovations circulating last week included the
wonderful idea of feeding sheep, pigs and cows special anti-flatulence
diets to reduce levels of methane, another greenhouse gas. This notion
merely induced derisive laughter.

Europe and most developing nations, as well as most non-governmental
agencies, scorn the idea of carbon sinks. Only the real thing - cuts in
emissions - will definitely work, they say.

In the words of the Environment Minister Michael Meacher, who will lead
Britain's negotiations this week: 'There is no substitute for taking
domestic action to reduce the emissions by burning less fossil fuels.'

Yet America remains obsessed with the idea it can use the dollar to buy
itself out of trouble and has proposed other ploys including the concept
of buying 'carbon credits' from countries such as Russia and Ukraine
whose industrial collapse over the past decade means they have already
reached their Kyoto reduction targets. The US wants to buy these
non-existent 'saved' emissions to put towards its own target.

In short, the nation with the greatest output of carbon dioxide, the
cheapest petrol in the West and the most inefficient energy industry is
struggling to avoid any domestic action that might help the planet. Its
delegates claim its stance is scientifically valid, though there is
little evidence at the Hague to support the claim. For example, planting
trees that gobble up carbon dioxide is a dangerous game, as researchers
at Britain's Hadley climate centre revealed. 'Yes, trees do soak up
gases produced by factories but they also contribute to global warming,'
said a meteorologist, Richard Betts.

'Trees have dark leaves and bark and stand out against light
backgrounds, particularly in higher, snowy latitudes. As a result, they
stop sunlight being reflected back into space. Our calculation show that
in places like Canada and Siberia, planting new trees would actually
increase global warming.'

So is it simply a matter of Americans trying to keep their styles of
life while the rest of the world struggle just to keep their lives?

Many at the Hague privately think so, although the US delegation,
emollient and polished to a man, insisted theirs was the only way
forward.'We have just as much to lose as the rest of the world,' said
David Sandalow, the US assistant secretary of state for international
environmental affairs.

At the end of the conference its organiser, the United Nations, hopes
that a group of developed nations that represent a total output of 55
per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions will be able to ratify the
Kyoto protocol. If that magic number is reached, the deal becomes an
international treaty. However, without the co-operation of the US, which
accounts for 24 per cent of the world's total output of carbon dioxide,
there is little likelihood of success.

And so the world's nations will square up to their climatic 'High Noon'
at the Hague tomorrow. On one side, Europe - led by Britain and Germany
and supported by the developing nations and green groups - is pressing
for real emission cuts. On the other, the US is backed by Canada,
Australia and Japan, nations which are desperate to avoid taking any
action that might risk the wrath of voters.

These, then, are the hate figures of the environment movement, a motley
crew that also includes any representative of an oil company, China
which wants to build more nuclear power stations and the
environmentalists' special bogeyman, Saudi Arabia, which is trying to
scupper the entire Kyoto protocol because it fears a downturn in petrol
use.

The Saudis claim they should be compensated by the rest of the world for
any loss of revenue. 'Nothing is too outrageous for them,' said Kerr
Davies, of Greenpeace.

It is against this background that more than 2,000 official delegates
have struggled over the fine print of the Kyoto protocol in a bid to
make it acceptable to their political masters. Most negotiations have
been conducted behind closed doors, though those held in open session
may as well have been held in secret so inscrutable is their
terminology, with phrases like 'biome-specific threshold values' and
'verified sink credits' causing nothing but general bafflement.

Added to these hard-pressed bureaucrats are 3,500 official observers
from 180 nations and more than 700 journalists, as well as a phalanx of
interested parties, including green groups, wind generator suppliers and
climate researchers. 'We have about 80 different meetings going on, as
well as press conferences,' said the conference organiser, Michael
Williams. 'This is bigger than any UN arms conference. I don't think
there has been a bigger, more complex conference.'

It may be the biggest conference show on Earth. But will it save the
planet? The conference president, Jan Pronk, warned delegates on Friday
that if they could not agree on a deal that was 'environmentally
credible' then the 'whole thing will fall apart'. Given America's
hardening stance and Europe's mounting irritation, such an agreement
looks unlikely.

The best the world can hope for is continued negotiations in coming
months. The worst is an American victory, won through its vast
industrial muscle.

As Lars Georg Jensen, of the World Wildlife Fund, said: 'If America gets
its way, it won't cut emissions until its people can actually smell the
carbon in the air. It will be too late for the rest of us by then, of
course.'

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2000
© Copyrighted 1997-2000 All Rights Reserved. Common Dreams.
Alessandro Gimona
agimona@libero.it
Alessandro Gimona
agimona@libero.it