What is in store for the world's climate based on the latest negotiations and schemings at top levels among nations and corporations?  From the horse's mouth, here is a glimpse from the United Nation's press release dated Dec. 12 on the occasion of wrapping up the Milan Climate Change Conference.  Following that are our on-the-scene reports from Culture Change's international editor, Pincas Jawetz, who exposes the insidious U.S. presence at the meeting.

"The annual ministerial meeting... (adopted) two dozen legal decisions and (explored) a wide range of options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change." [emphasis added]

There you have the first shoe dropping: adapt to climate change because the economic elite refuse to reduce emissions sufficiently.  Now the second shoe from the same press release [emphasis added]:

"Ministers noted that economic growth and climate change policies are compatible and, if action is taken at an early stage, economic gains can be made.  Implementing policies and measures such as energy-efficiency projects can help to decouple economic growth and the growth in emissions, in addition to achieving social and environmental benefits such as improved health...

"Good governance and infrastructure as well as opportunities for private-sector investment are vital. So, too, is choosing the best available technologies for the huge investments in electricity production that must be made over the coming two decades.  Fortunately, many low-emission technologies are already available..."

The U.N. and most of the players in reducing greenhouse gas emissions offer the world a contradiction ó having one's cake and eating it too: continuing industrial production for the sake of profits while cutting back emissions(?).  That game must be maintained, when a major goal is to remake the electric power infrastructure; this portends irresistible business for the lucky, far-seeing players cooperating with the U.N. on climate change.

Compromise is nothing new to the environmental non-governmental organizations at these meetings who are wise to the corrupting influence of powerful interests.  But to wink and nod too much, while embracing the status quo as representatives of "green consuming," is a path to world ecological destruction where there can be nothing but an impoverished resource base for the inevitable local economics that must again sustain human activity. 

We don't see much mention anymore of the undisputed finding by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that fossil-fuels use must be cut back 60-80 percent of what was spewing out in 1990 if climate stabilization is to be achieved.  - Jan Lundberg, Sustainable Energy Institute

__________________________________

A series of Reports For Culture Change from Prof. Pincas Jawetz, Culture Change Correspondent at the United Nations and International Editor

The Ninth Conference of the Parties that signed the UN convention on Climate Change brought close to 5,500 people to Milan from 180 nations.  This figure includes 2,300 non-governmental organizations and 550 people from the media.  The participants are from countries that did and did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.  In the latter category, the prominent countries are the US, Russia and Australia.  All European Union member states and the candidate states of the EU, New Zealand, Canada, and Japan, have ratified.

According to the way the Kyoto Protocol (KP) was written, it will  go into effect only if 55% of the signatories ratify.  These include 55% of the CO2 emissions at the then specified date ó 1990.  There is no problem with the first condition, as 121 countries have ratified the KP.  But thanks to the position of the US (the country at the forefront of greenhouse gas emissions), there is not going to be the required minimum of 55% of emissions without a Russian ratification of the KP.  The decision of Australia in this respect is irrelevant, and they can follow the US example if they choose to do so.  Russia is a different matter.  Basically, all eyes are directed to what Russia intends to do.  The signals from Russia are varied and, to say the least, intended to stall.  The problem is not the Russians but rather the European Union: its bureaucracy, the bureaucracy of the major environmental movements, and the bureaucracy of the Climate Change Convention staff.

It is quite clear that after six years of effort (Kyoto was in 1997 at the third meeting of the COP), the EU does not want to walk away from the KP to try something new.  The other groups mentioned above just cannot get off on the high of treading water and going to meetings.

The Russian contingent here is very large and varied.  There are delegates connected to businesses that stand to profit from foreign investments if Russia does ratify.  Also, the large NGOs in the West have brought over Russians to vouch that President Putin will ratify someday.  First he had to wait for the elections to the Duma, then for his own re-election to the Presidency, then for the US elections in 2004 ó so nothing will happen before November 2004.  The facts are rather different:  Seemingly, Mr. Putin is putting international politics ahead of anything else, and the situation in Chechnya may be the major factor.  

Also, the fact that in Kyoto, Russia was able to get a good income from selling the famous "hot air" ó that was the reduction of emissions when they closed the inefficient industries from Soviet times ó but without the US as buyers, there is no market for this "hot air" or make-believe reductions in emissions.  Without this incentive, why should they actually ratify?  True, there are businesses in Russia that stand to benefit from the other mechanisms that were established in Kyoto, but Mr. Putin may have other political aims, as shown in his latest dealings with some of the oligarchs.

Mr. Illiaronow, a very close assistant to Mr. Putin from days prior to the Presidency, stated that Russia will not ratify.  There is no reason to doubt him except for the lack of will to listen to him on the part of some people gathered here.  Without the Russian ratification, one can safely say that Kyoto is DEAD.  On the other hand, it does not make much sense in to be so trite.  It would make much more sense simply to say: "Look, with or without Kyoto, Europe and its coalition of the willing will proceed to implement some of the mechanisms established in the Kyoto Protocol pending a new regime that will be established eventually."

The best part of the events that occurred here in Milan was a feeling that this alternative is looked at seriously now, after a sense of weakening infatuation with the Russian presenters here.  The side events of their appearing full packed last week are quite empty this week; they simply do not seem to have the truth at their fingertips.  In a press conference with the German Green Minister of the Environment on December 10th, it became clear that he is calling for action now, even though he recognizes that this means acting without the KP in place.  He said that the Russians will eventually come along some day, but says we can't wait for them.  In the meantime, he says, we must act and such actions are already in process.  

At the first round-table of the ministerial level of the meeting, it became obvious that many participants in the discussion were dealing with such actions without spending time talking of the Kyoto Protocol.

Now what is actually the US position?  It is that the US is worried about global warming and suggests spending money for developing high technologies to be available in 20-50 years,  thus justifying doing nothing in the present time.  Such technologies include coal- fueled electricity that does not emit CO2, hydrogen fuels from renewable energy, and a new generation of nuclear technology.  To these concepts, the German Minister of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Mr. Juergen Tritin, answered that there is not going to be renewable energy sources for the production of hydrogen, unless we start implementing renewable energy programs with today's technologies, that may then eventually be improved by private enterprise, and there will be economic ways of producing hydrogen from renewable sources at the appropriate time ó otherwise we are dealing with "pipe dreams."

Looking at the figures the US quoted for its budgeting for energy development, Mr. David Garman, Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, said that he got only a relatively small reduction of the funding he had asked for.  But the funds were switched from the areas he originally suggested to areas such as hydrogen technology.  In effect, this was an emasculation of the potential of the presently available technologies in favor of the "pipe dreams."  When asked about these switches, Senator Imhofe's answer was that further funds will become available.

And how was US participation at the Milan meeting viewed?  This can be answered by looking at the "Fossil of the Day" awards from environmental NGOs.  USA was the champion garnering 19 points.  On December 11, the US got first place with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Oman "for trying to divert attention from urgently needed emission cuts now, by focusing squarely on future technology of capturing and storing CO2 from fossil fuels."  The Saudis, supported by Oman and Kuwait, asserted that CO2 capture would make fossil fuels "climate friendly;" the US joined that position.

On December 10, when asked by a reporter during a press conference whether or not she personally believed that climate change was happening, Ms. Dobriansky responded that the US was concerned about climate change and that's why they, the US, were "active Participants" here in Milan.  The reporter pointed out that she did not answer his question.  Cornered, she answered that President Bush had personally noted in public that warming and increased temperatures had been observed and that we had seen "cyclical changes" ó thus making it clear that she believes that the Administration believes that there is no human-induced climate change.

This stands makes it clear that the US Administration doesn't intend to participate in a problem-solving mode.  Nevertheless, its large presence here ó mainly with folks not related to the actual problem ó shows that it is (like the Russians, according to the first report of this series) worried about business implications of being left on the outside.  This at a time when Europe and even many developing countries are devising ways of cooperation to reduce greenhouse gases.  The presence in Milan of US groups ó such as state government and local authorities ó shows that the Administration's approach does not cover the whole spectrum of US interests.  Eventually, it will be business groups which are left outside the initiatives being created through the mechanisms that were put in place in Kyoto.  The world will start hammering at the Administration's doors with a call for change.  Mexico and Canada ( US's NAFTA partners) are more comfortable now with the EU's stand on fighting global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

THIRD REPORT FROM THE MILAN CLIMATE CHANGE MEETING