THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION MADE TWO NOTABLE statements on energy policy early in its tenure. They were both highly controversial. The first was that the Kyoto accords, as negotiated, were "dead.” The second was Dick Cheney's declaration in a 2001 speech that "conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy:" As it happens, both are accurate and should be at the heart of any new, ambitious policy to tackle global warning and energy use.

If you haven't fainted yet, let me explain what I mean. The administration had some narrow-minded and callous reasons for rejecting Kyoto, but it also argued centrally that the accords did not include developing countries and thus were ineffective. To understand why that is correct, consider one simple statistic.

During the Kyoto time frame (that is, by 2012), China and India will build almost 800 new coal-fired power plants. The combined CO2 emission just from those new plants will be five times the total reductions in CO2 mandated by the accords.

Understanding the causes and cures of global warming is actually very simple. One word: coal. Coal is the cheapest and dirtiest source of energy around and is being used in the world's fastest-growing countries. (That includes the United States, which plans to build about 80 new plants in the next five years.) If we cannot get a handle on coal, nothing else will matter.

Kyoto represents old thinking: if the " West comes together and settles on a solution, the Third World will have to adhere to;, that norm. It's the way things have been I done in international affairs for decades. . A new Kyoto would start the other way around. The United States should work out an agreement with China, India and Brazil, whose participation is absolutely crucial.

1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

Show Last Reply