which has lent its name to the Kyoto Protocol, which finally after
seven years became official yesterday, 16 February 2005.
From the AP coverage at CNN:
The agreement, negotiated in Japan's ancient capital of Kyoto in
1997 and ratified, accepted, approved or assented by 141 nations
including the European Union (EU), officially went into force at
midnight New York time (0500 GMT).
Environmental officials, gathered in the convention hall where the
accord was adopted, hailed the protocol as a historic first step in
the battle against global warming and urged the world to further
strengthen safeguards against greenhouse gases.
"Today is a day of celebration and also a day to renew our resolve
... to combat global warming," said Hiroshi Ohki, former Japanese
environment minister and president of the conference that negotiated
the protocol.
[more]
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/02/16/kyoto.ap/
Kyoto accord takes effect
Feb 16, 2005
Also:
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=reutersEdge&stor
yID=2005-02-16T160311Z_01_JON550128_RTRUKOC_0_ENVIRONMENT-KYOTO.xml
Reuters.co.uk
Kyoto treaty comes into force
Wed Feb 16, 2005
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?section=FOCUS&oid=68639
ABS-CBNNEWS.COM
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Kyoto Protocol comes into force after 7 yrs
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?ID=37432
Climate warnings, pressure on US as Kyoto takes effect
PARIS, Feb 16 (AFP)
And so on.
I've been watching all this for 13 years now, well longer, but in
1992 I did a major publishing job at the final, ministerial-level UN
climate-change conference that preceded the Rio Earth Summit. We
produced an online (via GreenNet) conference newspaper for a world
coalition of NGOs at the conference, held for two weeks in Nairobi
prior to the Rio "Earth Summit". The NGOs had observer status, and we
put the paper online (courtesy of Apple) every evening, sending it
worldwide for local re-distribution by NGOs in each country. By the
following morning we'd received their feedback for inclusion in the
next edition, which was in hardcopy on all the official delegates'
tables when they arrived for the day. Very effective. Advanced for
those days - the online version had graphics and layout etc, not just
text. Lots of firsts in that operation.
This conference was supposed to produce a firm and binding commitment
by national governments to take action against global warming, and
this commitment was intended to be the centrepiece of the forthcoming
Rio Summit. Of course it produced no such thing, just lots of fine
words, nothing binding, no commitment. Rather like Rio, in fact. So I
didn't go to the Earth Summit. Refused to go, rather. I've regarded
all such official events since then with some scepticism.
Anyway, Midori and I went to the Kyoto Convention Hall last night, to
the "celebrations", as it was called. The city is about an hour and a
half from here so we missed the first speeches, by Ohki and Joke
Walker-Hunter, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change, but we caught Kenya's Nobel Laureate Wangari
Maathai's speech and the rest.
All very upbeat, good reason to celebrate, a decisive victory for
multilateralism and so on, with cautions expressed that it was just a
first step, much more would be needed.
A common theme was that the "developed" nations with their resources
and technology would take the lead in combating the problem, with due
assistance to resource-challenged 3rd World nations that would bear
the brunt of the damage. I started getting impatient with this: take
the lead? How about taking the responsibility?
No, no - all very bland and polite, all false sacred cows duly to be
honoured, no applecarts to be upset.
We listened with growing astonishment as each of the distinguished
panellists talked around the one main glaring fact of the matter
without ever naming it - the absence of the United States. Several of
them mentioned it - "the world's biggest polluter, accounting for 25%
of emissions" - but not by name! Two major absentees, they said, the
other one being China, also not named, and no mention of or reference
to India and Australia.
I began to see the outline of a lot of horse-trading behind these
mostly-bland presentations, and started to wonder whether they'd open
the discussions to the floor, or have an open question-and-answer
session.
And indeed they did - imagine the row over the probable proposal to
set it up, with stooges in the audience chosen for their pre-set and
safe questions! But no: they only left time for two questions from
the floor (also arranged?) but they were genuine enough. The first
was by a Japanese man from Osaka, a member of an NGO, who demanded to
know why the US and China had not been named, calling for a frank and
honest approach to the problem or it could not succeed. He also said
Japan was itself to blame for backing inappropriate development in
Africa and elsewhere, such as large dam projects.
He used the terms Honne and Tatemae.
This will give you an idea:
Any discussion about Japan is incomplete without referring to honne
and tatemae. "Honne" is what you really think or literally "the
truth" while tatemae means what you actually show or literally
"facade". These two words pretty much define Japanese people's
behavior and it is so poorly understood by non-Japanese people that
it is hard for even long-term Japanese residents to deal with it.
Honne and tatemae are such an integral part of the Japanese social
behavior that Japanese people do not even have to think about it.
Since the ultimate goal in Japan is to maintain "wa" or harmony at
all points of time, opinions are never openly expressed, emotions
are not shown, and public confrontations are rare.
The Osaka NGO questioner dismissed the speeches as "tatemae" and
called for a "honne" response to this most crucial issue affecting
the future of our planet and everyone on it.
The translator rendered tatemae as "not frank" and honne as "candid".
First to reply was Masaki Konishi, Ambassador for Global
Environmental Affairs for Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. "Such
candid questions require a candid answer," he said (honne) - a
diplomat saying he'll be candid! Well, believe him if you like. He
wasn't. Instead he was cosmetic, doing a neat job of patching up the
shredded tatemae.
Second was Jennifer Morgan of the WWF, board member of the Climate
Action Network coalition of NGOs. She waffled briefly and
ineffectually about China and then turned to the US, putting her foot
right in it: "It's a question of if, not when - uh, I mean it's a
question of when, not if, the US joins Kyoto," she said. And that was
it.
So then, when? In four years' time? The global insurance industry
estimated world global warming damage at US$60 billion in 2003, going
up fast - the WWF's going to pay up the $240 billion? And the lives
that will be lost, wasted - collateral damage or what? And the extent
of opportunity for effective action another four years of footdraggng
will cost, to add to the last 13 years of the same? Meanwhile this is
not a steady increase, not even a curve - as Derek pointed out
discussing the heat absorbed by melting ice, while there's still ice
to be melted, it's a matter of sudden and irrevocable leaps. But it
all comes second to corporate welfare and the bottom-line. Coming
soon to a planet near you: The Matrix or Terminator, take your
choice, but leave out the happy ending.
This is probably how the horse-trading went - we'll only open it to
the floor on condition that none of the panellists mentions the US or
China. If someone from the floor mentions them, this is how the
panellists will respond...
Yuk.
Anyway, I was glad I went. It sort of put a neat and tidy and
predictable full-stop on the end of what I did in 1992.
The sub-text was a message from the authorities, governments,
experts: "Trust us."
I think that we here in this group, represented I suppose by Midori
and I at that august gathering with all the limos parked outside,
have quite possibly saved more carbon and done as much or more to
mitigate global warming than anyone in that conference hall. But
nobody there knew us or anything about us. Well, so what.
Some of the speakers emphasized how important it was for the citizens
of a country to be motivated (active sense) and educated, otherwise,
even if the government of that country committed itself to Kyoto, it
would fail. As with the OECD taking the lead rather than the
responsibility, we rather thought it was the other way round - or,
more so, just get the people going at ground level and sod the
authorities.
How much biodiesel wouldn't have been made and carbon not saved if
we'd all sat on our thumbs and waited for our governments and
authorities to show us the way?
So great, it's finally agreed, though rather than 1990 levels by 2012
or whatever it's going to take 60-80% cuts, at least, plus a lot of
hope (which we were saying in 1992). But methinks it's up to us and
others like us, not for us to "trust them".
Best wishes
Keith
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
