WRI sul voltafaccia di GW Bush

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

Cari tutti,

come forse sapete, nonostante le sue promesse in senso contrario durante 
la campagna elettorale, Bush ha annunciato che non limitera' le 
emissioni di gas serra da centrali elettriche in USA.

La decisione ha serie implicazioni per il clima e i negoziati ad esso 
connessi.

Riporto sotto il commento del Word Resources Institute (Stunningly 
short-sighted).


saluti,

Alessandro Gimona


         >WRI Statement on Pres. Bush Reneging on Promise to Curb 
Greenhouse Gas
         >Emissions
         >
         >
         >Washington, DC, March 14, 20001 -- "Stunningly short-sighted," 
was the 
         >World
         >Resources Institute (WRI) reaction today to the announcement 
that President
         >George W. Bush decided to renege on his campaign promise to 
curb 
         >greenhouse
         >gas emissions from power plants. "It is a slap in the face to 
our allies 
         >who
         >take climate protection seriously, and to the many companies 
that are 
         >taking
         >voluntary steps to reduce emissions."
         >
         >"A decision this fast, on something this important, that will 
have impacts
         >for a long time, is incredible," said Jonathan Lash, WRI 
president. "It
         >suggests a fear of where an open discussion and serious 
deliberation on
         >climate protection policies might have led."
         >
         >"In contrast to the process Pres. Bush established to 
determine his
         >administration's energy policy, the haste of yesterday's 
decision reeks of 
         >a
         >back room deal with coal, oil and industry lobbyists," said 
Dr. Nancy Kete,
         >director of WRI's Climate Program.
         >
         >"Dropping the carbon dioxide (CO2) target from new legislation 
to control
         >air pollution from power plants might take the heat off Pres. 
Bush in the
         >short term," said Dr. Kete, "but it is directly at odds with a 
long-term
         >strategy for climate protection." Omitting CO2 limits from a 
broad strategy
         >to clean up power plants invites utilities to lock-in a high 
level of 
         >carbon
         >emissions with new plants that will last another 30 to 50 
years. Though it
         >appears on the surface to reduce uncertainty for utility 
managers, it
         >doesn't. The tremendous international momentum for climate 
protection means
         >that U.S. power companies can hardly be reassured that the CO2 
control
         >problem has gone away. Instead, they must continue to worry 
when and how 
         >CO2
         >emissions will be dealt with.
         >
         >According to Dr. Kete, "there is no credible climate 
protection policy that
         >does not include a strong signal to investors and operators of 
power plants
         >that CO2 emissions must be reduced. And with the stroke of the 
pen, the
         >President just sent precisely the opposite signal."
         >
         >U.S. power sector emissions are roughly one-third of the U.S. 
total, and
         >contribute almost 8 percent of global CO2 emissions. It is a 
sector with
         >many low-cost, efficient emissions reduction options that an 
increasing
         >number of companies were willing to pursue.
         >
         >Treasury Secretary O'Neill has been a strong proponent of 
taking the long
         >view on climate change, suggesting that it is not just the 
Environmental
         >Protection Agency head that the White House has sideswiped 
with this
         >decision. The State Department will be terribly handicapped, 
as well, as
         >they try to explain how this is not a signal that the U.S. is 
walking away
         >from the 1992 climate protection treaty, signed by the 
President's father
         >and ratified at his request.
         >
         >Although Pres. Bush, in a letter to four conservative 
Republican senators
         >late yesterday, said he is "optimistic that, with the proper 
focus and
         >working with our friends and allies, we can develop creative 
ways to 
         >address
         >global climate change," it is hard to see how his decision is 
anything but 
         >a
         >slap in the face to international efforts to cooperate on 
climate
         >protection.
         >
         >"Not only has the president reversed himself on an unambiguous 
campaign
         >promise, he is trying to nail the coffin on a commitment his 
father made in
         >signing the 1992 climate protection treaty", said Dr. Kete. 
That treaty
         >includes a promise to return U.S emissions to 1990 levels, as 
part of an
         >overarching objective to prevent dangerous interference with 
the climate
         >system. "It is a solemn promise that our government would 
cooperate on
         >global efforts to protect the climate system."
         >
         >In his letter, Pres. George W. Bush says that he opposes the 
Kyoto Protocol
         >because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major 
population
         >centers such as China and India from compliance, and would 
cause serious
         >harm to the U.S. economy.
         >
         >WRI particularly decried the letter's focus on developing 
countries.
         >"Opponents of the Kyoto Protocol always complain that the 
treaty doesn't
         >include controls on developing country emissions, but they 
never seem to
         >admit that U.S. emissions dwarf those from most other 
countries combined,"
         >said Dr. Kete.
         >
         >Emissions from U.S. power plants alone exceed the combined 
emissions from
         >146 countries, roughly three-quarters of the countries in the 
world. Total
         >national emissions from large developing countries like Korea, 
Mexico, 
         >South
         >Africa, Brazil, Indonesia and Argentina added together barely 
meet U.S.
         >utility emissions levels. The power sector contributes roughly 
one-third of
         >U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, twice more than all the 
emissions from 
         >India.
         >And U.S. emissions in total are still more than double those 
from China.
         >
         >Last month the world's scientific experts on global warming 
announced that
         >the climate change evidence is getting stronger, the warming 
is happening
         >faster, and the consequences look worse than they thought. 
While most of 
         >the
         >nations of the world are trying to figure out how to implement 
the treaty
         >negotiated and ratified by the U.S. in 1992, the richest 
nation in the
         >world --and the source of 25% of global warming emissions, 
with only 5% of
         >world's population -- has decided that doing anything to 
control emissions
         >is just too expensive.
         >
         >"The future generations of Americans who suffer the 
consequences will be
         >powerless to change what this generation has put irreversibly 
in motion,"
         >said WRI president Jonathan Lash.