|
|
 | ENVIRONMENTAL DIPLOMACY
Analysis of the Kyoto Global Climate Conference December 12, 1997 |
|---|
Return to this forum's introduction.
Topics asked
in this forum:
A report from a correspondent in Japan. What reductions does the Kyoto agreement call for? Why has "global warming" become a big issue? Why were developing nations excluded from the agreement? Is there consensus amongst global leaders that global warming is for real? How should competing scientific claims about global warming be judged? Can the Kyoto Protocol be ratified by the Senate? Viewer comments.
NewsHour Coverage
December 11, 1997:
Two U.S. Senators discuss whether the Kyoto agreement will be ratified by the Senate.
December 10, 1997:
A member of the Clinton Administration reports on the negotiations in Kyoto.
December 9, 1997:
India's Ambassador to the U.S. explains why the developing nations should not be mandated to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
December 8, 1997:
The European Union's delegate to the U.S. talks about the rift between the EU and the U.S. at the Kyoto conference.
December 5, 1997:
A business leader questions the science behind global warming.
December 4, 1997:
A look at the the science and politics of global warming.
November 10, 1997:
An Online NewsHour forum on the U.S. plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
October 22, 1997:
A discussion of President Clinton's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
June 25, 1997:
President Clinton is backing the EPA's push for tougher air quality standards, but critics say they're too costly.
February 18, 1997:
The federal Environmental Protection Agency has proposed new clean air standardsthat have been criticized by some industry, state and local officials.
March 6, 1997:
The fastest rise in temperature for perhaps ten thousand years is having a dramatic effect on the brittle ecosystem of Antarctica.
January 4, 1996
British meteorologists report that the Earth's surface temperature was higher than the average in 1995.
Browse the NewsHour's coverage of science and the environment.
OUTSIDE LINKS:
Kyoto Conference
EPA on global warming
Global Climate Information Project
Environmental Defense Fund
The Environmental Defense Fund's page on global warming.
Sierra Club's page on global warming
Global Change, a database of articles on climate change.
Roger L. Scofield of Virginia Beach, VA, asks: In the early seventies the environmentalists were claiming that human-created emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases were causing catastrophic global COOLING--and that an ice age was imminent. The environmentalists now claim that those same emissions are causing catastrophic global WARMING, in the face of evidence to the contrary, but still claim scientific basis for their claims. Since only the solution is still the same--to restrict industrial growth, and the increase in the standard of living worldwide--shouldn't it be the environmentalists' motives that are questioned and not those who oppose the extreme measures which are being proposed to decrease CO2 emissions?
Prof. Charles Weiss of Georgetown University replies:
Scientists know a lot more about the world's climate than they did in the 1970s. The global cooling scare at that time resulted from the work of a small number of scientists who drew sweeping conclusions from a small base of data and theory. By contrast, climate scientists today base their predictions on numerous, elaborate computer models and vastly more data from land- and space-based measurements. These scientists have all kinds of motivations and all shades of political opinion. Their consensus is that it is dangerous to ignore the probability that human activities are causing irreversible damage to the climate.
They could still be wrong. So there is always the chance that we are contemplating major changes in lifestyle because of a theory. It's a high stakes gamble either way, as it usually is with environmental issues.
Prof. David Downie of Columbia University replies:
My opinion is that many parties on both sides overstate the issue. I believe it may be unproductive to pay attention to the comparative claims of particularly extreme environmental or industry groups. Time may be better spent listening to those attempting to forge broad scientific consensus, such as the IPCC panel, or to those discussing the merits of introducing prudent controls. For example, the Insurance Industry Initiative for the Environment examined and now supports cuts in greenhouse gas -- not as the result of a particular ideological perspective but due to their sober review of the scientific and statistical data and their resulting fear that, in their view, the greenhouse effect was likely to provoke a rise in "extreme meteorological events" that would lead to "dramatically increased" property losses. Similarly the heads of both British Petroleum and Shell UK have been quoted a supporting international action to address possible climate change.
Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. PBS Online Privacy Policy
Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.
