Agendas

There has been a conference going on in Paris as part of the PR campaign for the new global warming report. There is an air of triumphalism on all the press reports, but it would be a really good idea to step back a moment and look at some of the things that are going on right now. 

PARIS – Forty-five nations answered France's call Saturday for a new environmental body to slow inevitable global warming and protect the planet, perhaps with policing powers to punish violators.

Absent were the world's heavyweight polluter, the United States, and booming nations on the same path as the U.S. — China and India.

The charge led by French President Jacques Chirac came a day after the release of an authoritative — and disturbingly grim — scientific report in Paris that said global warming is "very likely" caused by mankind and that climate change will continue for centuries even if heat-trapping gases are reduced. It was the strongest language ever used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose last report was issued in 2001.

The document, a collaboration of hundreds of scientists and government officials, was approved by 113 nations, including the United States.

Despite the report's dire outlook, most scientists say the worst disasters — huge sea level rises and the most catastrophic storms and droughts — may be avoided if strong action is taken soon.

In his call to action at a French-sponsored environment conference on Saturday, Chirac said, "It is our responsibility. The future of humanity demands it."

Without naming the United States — producer of about one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gases — Chirac expressed frustration that "some large, rich countries still must be convinced." They are "refusing to accept the consequences of their acts," he said.

So far, it is mostly European nations that agreed to pursue plans for the new organization, and to hold their first meeting in Morocco this spring.

Chirac, 74, is seeking to leave his mark on international affairs before he leaves office, likely in May, though his own environmental record over 12 years as France's president is spotty.

Former Vice President Al Gore, whose Oscar-nominated documentary on the perils of global warming has garnered worldwide attention, cheered Chirac's efforts.

"We are at a tipping point," Gore told the conference by videophone. "We must act, and act swiftly … Such action requires international cooperation."

We may indeed be at a tipping point, just not the one Al Gore is stating publicly. Consider the environmental evidence the UN itself has published. There have been numerous warming and cooling trends though the history of the Earth. That can't be argued with. There does appear to be a warming trend right now. But there have been others at approximately equivalent intervals through history as well.

Man may be contributing, but the extent of that contribution is not settled, despite what the proponents of global warming as a man-made phenomenon say. But there are agendas in play right now. There is an attempt to damage the American economy through draconian controls and changes. Notice that the extreme rhetoric is aimed at the US. China and India are basically ignored.

Yet those two nations are poised to make the US look like pikers on the pollution front. Simply because of their massive populations. Yet the actions being talked about, like Jacques Chirac threatening "carbon taxes" on American goods, are all aimed at the US. What is really being talked about here is dragging the American economy down. Chirac, no friend to the US, is now trying to set up a policing agency with enforcement powers. The UN would also like to have enforcement powers.

The masks are slipping, folks. The agendas are coming out in the open. But there is a lot more politics than science involved.

The globe may indeed be warming, but once upon a time that would have ignited America's genius for seeing an opportunity and exploiting it. Despite all the doom and gloom, there are actually opportunities to be grabbed in a warmer Earth. There are also ways that a warmer Earth can be used advantageously, longer growing seasons just for one. We should be grabbing opportunities like those and running with them. Not eviscerating the American economy with controls that even this latest report say will not reverse any trends in the near term.

I'll leave this with one more quote from the linked article (which you really should read just to get a flavor of the triumphalism):

"We are certainly building critical mass among opinion leaders and nontechnical folks," Morgan said from Pittsburgh, citing recent calls to action by corporate CEOs, even in the energy industry. "We are at the point over the next three to five years where the U.S. is going to get quite serious about it."

That might say a little more about what they are aiming for than they intended.

UPDATE: Donald Sensing asks much the same question. So why is global warming a bad thing?

• 

  By angela, February 4, 2007 @ 5:00 pm

  It strikes me that your main argument against human-induced climate change is that the idea emerges from some sort of a global conspiracy to bring down the U.S. economy. Are pollution and unchecked CO2 emissions the backbone of American industry? It isn’t just Chirac that points out the responsibilities of the U.S. South Africa’s Environment Minister also points to the U.S. as a huge CO2 emitter. http://www.desmogblog.com/ipcc-quotes-from-around-the-world It is no secret that India and China, along with Russia, are other major emitters … so don’t have hurt feelings that you were singled out. Keep in mind that a carbon tax would also apply to France and South Africa, so they are willing to accept as well as support this measure, should it be approved. As a leader in technology and economic enterprise, the U.S. should not only rise to the occasion, they should stand as an example for other industrialized nations seeking reduced or CO2 free solutions.

• 

  By Gaius, February 4, 2007 @ 5:13 pm

  No, Angela, my feelings are not “hurt”. What I am seeing is a rush to blame this on man and focusing on the US in particular. Perhaps if the historical records did not show that it has been substantially warmer and cooler in the past without man-induced warming, it might more of a cut and dried argument.

  Should we get off of the use of petroleum? Yes, but for a number of reasons. But some of the measures being promoted are disasterous for economies – at a time when more expenditures to switch over will be needed.

Other Links to this Post

1. Blue Crab Boulevard » Insufficiently Hysterical — February 4, 2007 @ 8:18 am

2. Polimom Says » Global Warming: A plot by the climatologists — February 4, 2007 @ 11:16 am