In August of last year, analysing the Earth II Summit, we hinted \nthat nothing much should be expected from the December 1997 Conference \non Climatic Change which was to be held in Kyoto, Japan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Judging by the pessimistic headlines that carried news of the Conference’s closure, it would seem we were again proved right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Guardian,<\/em> London, on 12 December, for instance, \nannounced: “Kyoto Deal Leaves US Free to Pollute”, and the story was the\n dominant one to emerge from the talks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After hundreds of hours of arguing, the 10,000 who attended the \nconference from 160 countries agreed to reduce global greenhouse gas \nemissions by 5.2 percent over the next 15 years. The compromise \nbasically involved the cutting of such gases by 38 leading industrial \ncountries-the developing nations being under no obligation to reduce \nemissions-the European Union by 8 percent, the U.S.A. (the world’s \nbiggest polluter) by 7 percent and Japan by 6 percent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Long before the compromise had been reached there was evidence of its\n hollow echo, with U.S.A. congressmen, representing coal, iron and steel\n interests, intimating they would scupper any treaty by voting to oppose\n it when it comes up for ratification by Congress later this year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar fears were echoed by Japanese officials who pointed out that \nthe fuel lobby can assert considerable influence on Japanese \ngovernmental decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Moreover, critics have pointed to one clause of the agreement-the \ntrading of emissions quotas-which would enable the U.S.A. to make no \ncuts at all, and perhaps even increase emissions. Impoverished countries\n would be all too tempted to sell portions of their quota on emissions \nto countries such as the US where powerful fuel interests care more for \nshort-term profit than the long-term damage to the environment. In \nshort, this clause-and one the US insisted was included before they \nwould agree to anything-is a loophole designed to let Western corporate \nelites buy their way out of the obligation to cut emissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What becomes of the brave words spoken at Kyoto when the time comes \nfor the promises to be implemented is anyone’s guess. One thing is \ncertain. We can not expect obligations to be met so long as there are \nprofits to be made.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Perhaps Michael Meacher, British Environment Minister, said it all when he complained: “We in the EU cannot be expected to reduce our emissions more than our competitors” ( The Guardian<\/em>, 10 December 1997). Need we say more?<\/p>\n\n\n\n