No sense of urgency to change climate for the better
LETTER FROM LONDON
By Ashraf Abdullah
THE Hotel Palace where I stayed during the recent Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework convention on Climate Change (COP) in Berlin overlooked a nudist swimming complex.
Hundreds of people of both sexes and of all ages flocked to the pool every day for a swim or to sunbathe under the mild spring sunshine.
As I watched them having fun, I wondered whether this wonderful relationship between man and nature will last until eternity. Unfortunately, it will not, experts say.
Sunbathing looks perfectly healthy today, but scientists are of the opinion that this is only temporary. The ozone layer, which protects man from the dangerous ultra violet rays of the sun, is depleting at a rapid pace. Without the ozone layer, human beings will become vulnerable to skin cancer.
Experts say that our children will soon suffer the after-effects of man-made greenhouse gases. Yes, it is as soon as that!
But sadly there is no sense of urgency among the rich and powerful to seek global solutions to the problem. After days of listening to speeches pinpointing the destruction to the environment and decrying the insensitivity of the West, I returned to London, a disturbed person.
The COP made no ruling for a global commitment to reduce greenhouse gases, which are mostly emitted by the developed States. It highlights further the inequality between the industrialised North and developing South.
The OECD countries represent less than 15 per cent of the world’s population, but they consume 75 per cent of the world’s resources and emit more than 85 per cent of the total amount of carbon dioxide.
I feel this inequality between the North and a majority of the world has many parallels with that between whites and non-whites in South Africa before the first all-race elections last year.
Resistance to share global resources equitably — including the atmosphere — is similarly based on electoral pressures for narrow self-interest.
The United States and Australia refused to accept specific targets and timetables to reduce their emissions of C02, which is already causing the Antarctic iceberg to melt and raising sea levels.
The Arctic ozone levels have also dropped to an all time low, with as much as 50 per cent reductions at some altitudes.
The mandate for a protocol by the Alliance of Small Island States (Aosis) — a group of 30 Caribbean and Pacific island nations which are most vulnerable to rising sea levels — was totally rejected.
This is because the Aosis had proposed commitments from the developed nations to reduce the C02 emissions in the year 2000 to the 1990 level and a further 20 per cent in the year 2005.
Although the developing countries formed the vast majority of the 127 countries which ratified the convention, they had to stoop to the more industrialised nations which, as usual, resorted to arm-twisting. So much so, certain oil-producing nations and developing Latin American countries refused to accept the Aosis protocol, putting their other developing partners like Malaysia in a spot.
The rules governing the world are changing fast. Global finance, trade and the environment affect everyone, no matter where they are. But the most important decisions about them are made by relatively few people.
The leaders of the Western nations have the final say in the UN Security Council, World Bank, International Monetary Fund and other global institutions. The majority of the world’s people have no say in the new rules of global governance.
There are exceptions. Britain, for instance, is on course to meet its existing climate commitment by stabilising emissions by the year 2000.
The British Government claims that its success is due to the privatisation of the electricity industry, which has triggered a switch from inefficient generation to more efficient gas power stations.
However, the current efforts to overcome global warming cannot succeed -unless there is a clear and unambiguous commitment on the part of the industrial countries to reduce their. greenhouse gas emissions and to provide technical assistance, funds and access to technology using renewable resources.
The painfully slow decision-making process in the Climate Change negotiations are inadequate to deal with the issues facing us. Decades of argument over trade, development and North-South relations have done little to improve the conditions for the majority.
On the other band, the West continues to entrench its privileges and unequal power in a system of "global apartheid" .
Source : 10 April 1995
Recycling Point Dot Com
(C) 2000 All Rights Reserved