And What If The Sceptics Are Wrong? - Guardian

[hatrack]

EDIT

There are those who say the risks have been exaggerated. To such people I say this: if we go your way and you are wrong we will save money in the short term but incur an immense penalty in the long term; if we go my way and I am wrong we will incur costs in the short term but with the reward of greener, cleaner technologies for saving and generating energy. Such technologies would improve air quality, avoid acid rain and reduce our dependency on imported gas and oil.
It would seem that the Bush administration and for many years the US Senate do not accept this logic: America will not sign up to the Kyoto protocol; but we should not presume that American action on climate change begins and ends in Washington. California has shown how governments can encourage the development of breakthrough technologies such as hybrid electric cars and has pursued far-sighted policies. Across America, over 150 local governments, representing more than 50 million people, have in effect signed up to the Kyoto protocol - pledging to reduce carbon emissions by more than most European countries.

The American people have shown that not being a signatory need not stop one from making progress on climate change. Sadly, Tony Blair has proven the corollary: being a signatory does not guarantee progress. If Britain achieves its Kyoto commitments it will be for two reasons: the legacy of the Conservative-led dash for gas in the 1990s and reduced emissions of minor greenhouse gases due to one-off improvements to industrial plant. But emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, have been going up under Labour. They are now higher than when they took office in 1997. Indeed, not only will Labour fail miserably on their target for a 20% reduction in carbon emissions by 2010, they may even miss Britain's Kyoto target too.

Thus Mr Blair is in a weak position to lecture Mr Bush. He has not restored Britain's position of world leadership because he has not led by example. This is in contrast to the Conservative record. Starting with Margaret Thatcher, Conservative ministers were instrumental in raising the issue of climate change. Our words rang clear, not just because they were backed by science but also because they were backed by action that reduced UK emissions.

EDIT

The future should look something like this: at first, emission reductions should be realistic. If they aren't, the US, China and India will reject any successor treaty. These economies rely on huge industries that can't turn themselves around within this decade, but can and must do so in the decades ahead. In the longer term, reductions must become progressively more ambitious. Furthermore, they must be locked in through binding commitments, stretching decades into the future and reinforced by market-based emissions-trading mechanisms. That would send the clear signal that industry and finance need if they are to invest enough in the new technologies required. And before that governments must do more to support the emergence of those technologies. This isn't just about us and the Americans. The sobering fact is that China is building 1,000 megawatts of coal-fired generating capacity every two weeks. Before long India will be doing the same. If we don't develop the technologies that will enable these emerging giants to generate power cleanly then the war against global warming will be lost."

EDIT

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1500714,00.html

[billyskank]

1. This article was written by the leader of the *Conservative* party as well

I was most surprised.