That does not mean I'm a blind supporter for every thing some bloated bureaucracy says though
I read the story as slanted "pro-global warming." The comment from the head of the Russian Academy of Scientists in the article I posted is pretty devastating. Here is the first wire story I have found on it. It misses a lot of the story also.
__________________________________________
October 3, 2003
Climate Summit Split Over Kyoto Protocol
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:52 p.m. ET
MOSCOW (AP) -- President Vladimir Putin cast new doubts Friday on Moscow's willingness to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on curbing greenhouse-gas emissions, saying the pact will fail to achieve its goal of fighting global warming.
``Even 100 percent compliance won't reverse climate change,'' he told a conference organized by the World Economic Forum in Moscow. Putin noted ongoing disputes between scientists over the pact, which without Russia's backing cannot come into existence.
Earlier this week, the president upset the opening of a U.N. World Climate Change Conference -- held on the sidelines of the economic forum -- by saying his Cabinet hadn't decided whether to sign off on Kyoto.
Angry debate over the treaty colored the climate conference, which closed Friday with no consensus and with European and U.N. supporters of the pact accusing Moscow of reneging on a pledge to ratify it.
Throughout the conference, Putin's influential economic adviser, Andrei Illarionov, issued scathing attacks on Kyoto, saying it would slow economic growth of EU member states.
He also said Russian accession to Kyoto would jeopardize Putin's goal of doubling gross domestic product in 10 years by forcing it to cut industrial emissions.
``The Kyoto Protocol will stymie economic growth,'' Illarionov told journalists. ``It will doom Russia to poverty, weakness and backwardness.''
The EU mission to Russia issued an angry statement, quoting EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstroem as warning Russia that it would lose politically and economically if it failed to ratify the treaty.
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol calls for countries to reduce their level of greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2012. If a country exceeds the emissions level, it could be forced to cut back industrial production.
To come into force, the protocol must be ratified by no fewer than 55 countries, accounting for at least 55 percent of global emissions in 1990. That minimum can be reached only with Russia, because the United States has rejected the treaty.
Illarionov argued that since the United States, China and other nations that rejected the protocol now account for nearly 70 percent of global emissions, the pact will fail anyway.
Proponents argued Kyoto was a vital first step in cutting emissions, and warned that failure to quickly put it into force would trigger a dangerous, steep rise in greenhouse gas concentrations that would be far more difficult to control in the future.
They also pointed at economic benefits Russia could reap from the agreement by attracting vital foreign investment in its energy sector.
Illarionov and other Kyoto critics dismissed such possible benefits.
They said that although Russia's emissions have fallen 32 percent since 1990, any industrial development would soon leave Russia with nothing left in its emission quota to sell to others under the Kyoto-sponsored trading scheme.
Even so, Putin told the World Economic Forum that Moscow would ``be reluctant to make decisions on just financial considerations.''
``We should be guided primarily by more noble ideas rather than the consideration of mundane, quick economic benefit,'' he said Friday.
The climate conference closed with representatives of global environmental groups and other non-government organizations urging that Kyoto be brought into force ``as urgently as possible.''
``Unless we act now, forced adaptation to the consequences of climate change in the near future may become an intolerable burden on humanity,'' they said Friday in a concluding statement.
Critics countered by saying it has not been conclusively proven that the greenhouse gas emissions were a top factor behind global warming, and that volcanic eruptions, the oceans' impact and solar activity needed to be more thoroughly analyzed.
Throughout the conference, each side accused the other of being driven by political and business interests and ignoring scientific data. The gathering's final statement tried to avoid the controversy, but Kyoto supporters succeeded in pointing at emissions as a key cause of global warming.
nytimes.com |
