-Caveat Lector- [See website for embedded links to referenced articles.] This Just In ... <http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/heatbeat/thisjustin011101.stm> by Leonie Haimson 11 Jan 2001 For my annual wrap-up, here are the five biggest climate stories of 2000 -- in rough order of their occurrence and their impact on the popular imagination. (I'd like to acknowledge to readers from other parts of the globe that this is just one person's opinion, with an admittedly U.S. bias. Most likely, if I lived in Iceland or Micronesia or even in England, I would have other stories to recount.) 1. The vanishing Arctic ice. In a front-page story in August, the New York Times reported that scientists on board a ship cruising through Arctic waters saw almost no floating ice, and that at the North Pole, "an ice-free patch of ocean about a mile wide has opened at the very top of the world, something that has presumably never before been seen by humans. . . . The last time scientists can be certain the pole was awash in water was more than 50 million years ago" (New York Times, John Noble Wilford, 19 Aug 2000). Though this striking intro was retracted 10 days later (there's no way to know how often the North Pole may have been ice-free in previous years), the point of the article was substantially correct and penetrated the popular imagination in a way that no climate story had since the torrid summer of 1988 (New York Times, John Noble Wilford, 29 Aug 2000). Several scientific studies had earlier noted the vanishing ice cover phenomenon in a more systematic but less dramatic way. Late in 1999, data collected by submarines revealed that ice cover over a large part of the Arctic had thinned during warmer months by about 40 percent over the last four decades (New York Times, William K. Stevens, 17 Nov 1999). And in another report, in July, Norwegian scientists predicted that in 50 years, summer Arctic ice could entirely disappear (New York Times, Walter Gibbs, 11 July 1999). But to hear it predicted and to see it actually happen are two very different things, at least to most people, and this story moved the zeitgeist so much that it soon became a recurring topic on the David Letterman show, leading Letterman himself to grill presidential candidates Gore and Bush on global warming when they later appeared on his show. 2. A near-doubling of the predicted increase in global temperatures. This story, which broke in late October, should have been front-page news everywhere but wasn't. The New York Times concentrated on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's increased certainty that the warming occurring over the last century was "likely" caused by human activities, in place of the panel's assessment five years ago that "the balance of evidence" suggested influence by humans (New York Times, Andrew C. Revkin, 26 Oct 1999). This is a subtle point, elusive to most people. The bigger development was that the IPCC nearly doubled its predicted range of increased global temperatures -- 2.7 to 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit, up from the 1.8 to 6.3 degrees it had earlier predicted. If the upper end of this prediction actually comes to pass, our planet will be transformed into something nearly unrecognizable, it will be even warmer than when the dinosaurs still roamed the Earth (for more on this story, see my November column). 3. Deadlock at The Hague. Though there was some talk after the climate negotiations collapsed in late November of bringing the parties together again before the New Year to resolve their differences, the gaps between the U.S. and European positions proved too formidable to be bridged. (For more on the failure of the talks, see last month's column). The failure of the negotiations was especially disappointing, given the other two major developments of 2000, which should have provided the impetus for negotiators to reach an agreement. 4. U.S. business leaders get religion. The year began with Ford and Daimler-Benz ditching the Global Climate Coalition, the main industry lobby group opposing the Kyoto Protocol and mandatory reductions of emissions. Soon after, Texaco followed, becoming the first major U.S. oil company to leave the sinking GCC. In a letter, Texaco explained that the company "shares society's concern over the issue of climate change," and that "protracted debate about the adequacy of the science is something Texaco wishes to move beyond." A growing number of large U.S. corporations committed themselves to substantial reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions, at a rate equal to or faster than that required of the U.S. economy as a whole under the Kyoto Protocol. IBM, Johnson & Johnson, and DuPont led the way, later joined by many others. At a poll released at The Hague, 34 percent of Fortune 5000 executives said they supported the climate treaty's ratification, with only 26 percent opposed. In 2000, Honda and Toyota introduced hybrid cars to the marketplace, and Ford announced it would soon follow. These cars reduce CO2 emissions by 40 percent. Ford also announced its intention to boost the average fuel economy of its SUVs by 25 percent over the next five years. William Ford, the chairman of the company since last year, proclaimed that climate change was the most challenging issue facing the world and that anyone who disagreed was "in denial" (Independent, Michael McCarthy, 06 Oct 2000). 5. The Clinton-Gore era ends and the Bush reign begins. In many ways it was a stunning eight years. The high point, so far as climate change goes, was the signing of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, a true pivotal moment in human history, never before had such an ambitious environmental agreement been struck. But despite the fact that both Clinton and Gore were true believers, Clinton in particular gave many eloquent speeches about our moral obligation to stem the tide of global warming, they were unsuccessful in getting actual measures through Congress that would begin to require real reductions, never mind ratify the treaty. Perhaps the Bush administration will be more successful. Bush himself, if he so chooses, will have more influence over the recalcitrant Republicans in Congress than Clinton did. So far, the environmental signals from his Cabinet nominees are mixed; some terrible, some showing promise. Perhaps most intriguing is Paul O'Neill as treasury secretary, who as CEO of Alcoa was one of the most forthright business leaders on the issue of global warming. Since 1990, O'Neill has been one of the strongest advocates for a gasoline tax, both for economic and environmental reasons. He even supported the ill-fated Clinton-Gore carbon tax in 1992. Immediately, when news of Bush's intention to appoint O'Neill leaked out, conservatives declared outrage. Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said that O'Neill's previous position on this issue "raises questions about whether he understands economic growth. . . . He should say something like the North Koreans were capturing his wife, and that's why he said something so stupid" (Washington Post, 20 Dec 2000). Even when the Wall Street Journal chimed in, harshly criticizing the appointment, Bush didn't budge. Just before the Kyoto meeting, when Clinton was attempting to draw public attention to global warming, O'Neill attended several White House meetings on the issue (New York Times, 21 Dec 2000). In a roundtable discussion of business executives in December 1997, O'Neill, though questioning the certainty of the science, was unequivocal in his belief that governmental action needs to be taken (Fortune,08 Dec 1997). Some of his comments: "If people believe this is a serious issue, they ought to put their nationalism behind them and think about how does civilization exist with this problem we're creating. Then we'll sort out who pays. Seems fairly obvious to me. People with money are going to have to pay. . . . You're not going to be able to tell people in China, 'Pay your fair share of this.' If we really care about this as a global problem, we and the other developed nations are going to have to pay for it." As for the possible flight of jobs to undeveloped countries if stricter emission controls were placed on the developed world, he replied, "I, frankly, don't care about what the national or company consequences are. It's not a good reason to avoid doing something because there may be some job-relocation effects. This issue may be far more important than that." In March 1998, after the Kyoto Protocol was signed, O'Neill gave a speech to the Aluminum Association which argued that further action on climate change should not be postponed, even though real emission reductions were not mandated until the year 2008: "I believe a real danger to civilization is that . . . we don't do anything for 10 years." A treasury secretary who genuinely cares about this issue could be very useful, even if named by a Republican president with strong ties to the oil industry. Neither Robert Rubin nor Lawrence Summers, the two treasury secretaries under Clinton, were known for their interest in the environment, in Summers's case, quite the reverse. Both were also thought to have obstructed climate negotiations at critical junctures. Perhaps, like Earl Warren's appointment as chief justice by President Eisenhower, which led to a Supreme Court era of progressive activism, O'Neill's ascendancy at treasury will, at just the right time, mark the beginning of a period in which economics and environment are seen not as competing goals, but as complementary necessities for society and the planet as a whole. Stranger things have happened. I'm continually impressed with the varied expertise and backgrounds of my readers, so please remember to nominate other important climate stories of 2000 from around the globe and forward them to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'll include all interesting submissions in next month's column. ---- Leonie Haimson was the climate columnist for the former Liberty Tree Alliance website. She co-authored The Way Things Really Are: Debunking Rush Limbaugh on the Environment for the Environmental Defense Fund, and edited Common Questions on Climate Change for the U.N. Environment Program. <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
