Democracy & Environmental Policy

A few weeks ago, President George W. Bush of the United States caused widespread dismay by his communication addressed to four different members of the Senate literally burying the Kyoto Protocol. The US President obviously did not anticipate the massive criticism and protest this action would provoke. The result of his abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol, questioning of the science of climate change and refusing to do anything about reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from US power plants have been rightly seen by many as a backward step. Not only have leaders in Europe openly criticised President Bush's stand, but a delegation from the European Union led by the Swedish Environment Minister flew to Washington, DC to meet important officials in the Administration in an effort to convince them of the unreasonableness of this change in posture on the part of President Bush. An Op-Ed page article by William K. Reilly, who was the Head of the Environment Protection Agency under President George Bush, father of the current President, took a very different view of the climate change problem. He stated in his article that, "The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently concluded that anthroprogenic emissions has contributed substantially to warming." In this context he recommended that the National Academies could be asked to review the Panel's findings along with the state of technologies, and thereby Bush could fulfil his campaign promise of following the science of climate change. Very rightly William Reilly also referred to the fact that 11 major companies, 8 of them American, have committed to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by totals that exceed the reduction required by Britain under the Kyoto Protocol. He mentioned in particular United Technologies, IBM, Baxter, and Polaroid. Another major change in position triggered by President George W. Bush's turnabout appears to have occurred in the thinking of Senator Byrd, who was responsible jointly with Senator Hagel for introducing a resolution in the US Senate in July 1997, which asked the then US Administration not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol unless there was meaningful participation by key developing countries. This non-binding resolution was passed by a vote of 95 to 0. But, now the same Senator Byrd in his statement in the US Senate on May 4th this year asked the Administration to pay greater attention to climate change. He stated, "We must demonstrate our resolve, and begin to get our own house in order by launching such a research and development effort, as well as continuing and expanding our current efforts to reduce our GHG emissions." He also spelt out several measures that should be taken urgently. Senator Byrd's entire statement on the floor of the Senate represents a refreshing change from his earlier rigid and totally negative stand on the Kyoto Protocol. This experienced legislator is looked up to by several membersof the US Congress, and is generally seen as the leader and protector of the coal lobby, coming as he does from West Virginia, a state whose entire economy depends substantially on coal. An important observation on the current US debate on climate change that can be made is that democracy and public opinion are clearly the most important factors in determining environmental policy. The White House was jammed with telephone calls and hundreds and thousands of e-mail messages condemning George W. Bush's statement on climate change. One of the appeals sent round the world by a group of scientists and representatives of responsible business and NGOs like Friends of the Earth appealed to hundreds and thousands of people advising them to flood George Bush with e-mail messages. All this has obviously had an effect. The New York Times of May 13th carried a headline stating "Bush Plans Incentives for Energy Sonservation". An article under this headline gave details of President Bush's weekly radio address in which he said, "Pushing conservation forward will require investment in new energy technology and that will be part of my Administration's energy plan." While resiling from his earlier position of merely wanting an increase in energy supply he tried to distinguish between traditional conservation policies and what he called, "The 21st century conservation" that uses new technologies to make efficiency less painful. At the same time Bush has been inviting individuals and groups to make presentations on the climate change problem and has clearly put a process of review into place, obviously in response to the protests he has received from all over the world and from the public and green NGOs in his own country. Irrespective of what emerges from this change in the position of President Bush, what has happened in the past few weeks is a fascinating example of democracy being the best insurance for environmental protection. Even a conservative administration such as the one in Washington currently has had to take the widespread criticism and protest heaped on it seriously. And the very fact that people from a wide spectrum of opinion are now being asked to give their views on what the US should do, leaves some place for hope on the position of the largest emitter of GHGs in further negotiations on climate change. The next few weeks would be critical for the US and the entire world, because before July when the suspended 6th Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) reconvenes, it is theposition of the US that would make or break the negotiations that are now delicately poised. Should the UScontinue with a negative stance, perhaps the rest of the world should go ahead and ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which would clearly put this Administration under greater pressure. If, however, the US Administration display a more open and constructive attitude, then perhaps a little more patience and tolerance might help in letting thedemocratic forces in the US push President George W. Bush to a point where the protocol is ratified without too many major changes in its current structure.