Just when you thought things were actually getting better, the Environment team at UK’s the Independent has to go and ruin it. But the truth hurts, right?
CO2 emissions worldwide over the past five years were four times greater than for the preceding ten years.
Data on carbon dioxide emissions shows that the global growth rate was 3.2 per cent in the five years to 2005 compared with 0.8 per cent from 1990 to 1999, despite efforts to reduce carbon pollution through the Kyoto agreement.
Yet, while the Bush administration drags its feet on creating a real plan on dealing with climate change (who can blame them, they seem to struggle with creating any kind of plan in general these days, whether its in Iraq, Iran, or dealing with North Korea), the UK is making it major piece of their talks at the G2O economic summit in Melbourne, Australia. In fact, some of the world’s leading economic heads have said that global warming and climate change “should be debated as widely as possible, including the world’s financial leaders,” which is a stark turnaround from 10 years ago when climate change was barely a blip on their radars.
This is a key shift in the struggle to put climate change at the forefront of world leader’s priorities, but it should be tempered with a stark reality: they’re only talking about it. The real question behind all of this talk is what happens when the rubber hits the road and real action needs to take place? Also, why do these talks have to happen behind closed doors, as so many elite world leaders meetings do? Global warming and climate change is an issue that effects every citizen on this planet. It should be an open forum, televised, recorded on radio and broadcast over the internet.
I am also cautioned by the fact that “climate change is not on the formal agenda” but will be raised by several leading UK finance ministers in the session on energy security.
The bad news: Paul Wolfowitz, head of the World Bank, will also be present. His idea of how the World Bank can help on climate change seems to be a stalling tactic at best:
“It can hopefully be a mechanism for developing a more fruitful dialogue between Europe and Japan on the one hand, the United States on the other hand, and the middle-income countries on the third hand, where there is potential for some mutual agreement and some facilitation with investment,” he said.
Right. That almost sounds like he’s committed to the idea.