Fossil Industry Has Its Way With Kyoto

There is an extremely disturbing article in the Week In Review section of the New York Times today, titled,"On Climate Change, a Change of Thinking", by Andrew C. Revkin. Revkin is a reporter for the Times, evidently specializing in climate change. There are many troubling apects of this article: It nearly exactly echoes the ExxonMobile/Bush Administration party line on the necessity for fossil fuel energy resources, the destructive economic effects of limiting emissions, and the far distant and still technologically problematic use of non-polluting energy sources.

However, the most troubling part of this article is potentially the most positive for efforts like Climate Protection Campaign.

The article repeats the tired bromides:

1) The Kyoto protocol's inadequacies, primarily not including developing nations in the emissions caps, fueled "strong opposition to the treaty in the United States Senate and its eventual rejection by President Bush."

As a basis for opposition to Kyoto, this never stood up to scrutiny. One of the major goals of the Kyoto Protocol was to create an incentive for developed nations (Annex I) to make major investments in renewable, non-fossil energy sources and energy efficiency in developing nations through the Clean Development Mechanism. The idea was that the developed nations could provide both the financing and the technological know-how to get developing nations started on a non-hydrocarbon economy development path, and nip the problem in the bud, as it were. However, the United States, world's stingiest developed nation, declined this opportunity.

2) The Kyoto treaty was doomed to failure anyway, because "there are no viable alternatives to fossil fuels."

This statement borders on the ludicrous. It shows the extent to which both the mainstream media and the Montreal process have been co-opted by fossil fuel interests.

3) The enormous costs of complying with the protocol make it destructive to the economies of signatory nations.

The article echoes the Big Lie of Tony Blair,"The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge." This statement was made after Tony Blair received "climate change epiphany" from Bush at the Gleneagles G8 conference. It was recognized for what it was at the time: a cowardly and sycophantic about-face by Bush's lap dog.

4) Carbon dioxide emissions (such as produced by "surfing the Web and burning wood")are "woven into the fabric of an industrial society, and, for now, economic growth is inconceivable without it. "

This ridiculous aggregation of misinformation and mis-statement has been refuted time and time again by both the energy efficiency and renewable energy communities. The Apollo Alliance and the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy have done studies that show that improving efficiency and moving toward renewables, far from hurting the economy, would act as a stimulus.

5) There is no mention of efficiency and conservation as being keys to large emissions reductions, particularly in the United States. It portrays renewables as being the only answer and says this, "is still far out on the horizon" needing huge amounts of money for research and development.

The article finishes with a quote from a representative of Electric Power Research Institute, which is the research arm of the large, fossil fuel-using utilities, including and especially the generators using coal-fired power plants. "Enormous investments in basic research have to be made promptly, even with the knowledge that most of the research is likely to fail, if there is to be any chance of creating options for the world's vastly increased energy thirst in a few decades."

Hand-wringing and hopelessness such as this from the large, mostly coal-using electric power generators is, one could say, to be expected. However, this article offered no counterpoint. Where is the silver lining in all this? The article made one interesting observation, "progress on climate is less likely to come from megaconferences like the one in Montreal and more likely from focused initiatives by clusters of countries with common interests."

I think this points to the power of the approach of organizations like Climate Protection Campaign. Action on climate protection should, indeed, must, be locally appropriate. Sub-national or regional groups, working with local groups to share knowledge, financing and information can and must be the engine of implementation of climate protection. National and international efforts are proving to be too diffuse and potentially politically manipulable by big, established fossil fuel industries. Climate protection activities are not only doable at a local level, localities can prosper from a climate protection regime.