By Henry Lamb
(November 17 2000)
Den Haag (The Hague) could use a heavy dose of "global warming." As the steady drizzle here approaches the threshold to snow, the rhetoric heats up at the Conference Center, where thousands of delegates, and twice as many NGO observers, argue over every detail of the Kyoto Protocol.
Meanwhile, in Nepal, television cameras captured the spectacle of 26 world religions joining with environmental extremist organizations to pledge "sacred gifts" to the earth. Christians "pledged" to put land under environmental management, according to the report. Another group pledged to stop hunting the snow leopard. Among the dignitaries participating in the event, was England's Prince Phillip. The religious leaders and eco-zealots barely had time to recover from jet-lag from their last gathering in New York last September. That event was led by Mikhail Gorbachev and Maurice Strong, designed to bring the world's religions together to wage a sacred campaign to save the earth.
Simultaneously, in England, another group of environmental extremists launched a major demonstration denouncing "GM" - not the car company, Genetically Modified food. It's hard to comprehend the planning and coordination - to say nothing of the funding - necessary to bring about this global outpouring for mother earth.
What each of these events has in common is their relationship to the United Nations' agenda to dictate the terms by which the earth will be saved. The NGO observers-protesters-advocates-agitators, get a significant portion of their funding through United Nations agencies or programs. Of course, at least 25% of all U.N. money comes from the United States.
The propaganda surrounding the Hague conference is broad, deep, and pervasive. To participants arriving at the Conference, a World Wildlife Fund operative, dressed in a polar bear costume, distributes a card which says "don't sink the Protocol!" A pamphlet which explains how participants must purchase coupons to exchange for food, advises that all foods are prepared with "ecologically beneficial" ingredients. A hundred or more NGO exhibits distribute tons of literature. An attendee package prepared by the U.N., contains a book of photos and poetry describing the tragic condition of mother earth - caused by man's greedy exploitation. Throughout the conference facility, large posters repeat the theme "Work it out!"
The theme refers to the hundreds of questions left unanswered in Kyoto where the Protocol was formally adopted in 1997. For nearly three years, now, these same conferees have been meeting in various cities around the world several times each year, negotiating answers to these unanswered questions. For example, the European Union and New Zealand want the word "reforestation" to include natural regeneration of forests that have been logged. China, Malaysia, and other nations say absolutely not. This is an example of the mountain of minutia that the conferees are climbing. Incidentally, they have not yet agreed on what a forest is, either.
The larger questions, such as what the term "legally binding" means, have not yet been answered. This session in the Hague is supposed to provide answers to all these questions so the Protocol can be fully implemented by 2002. It is a very high mountain to climb.
The really, really big questions - is human activity actually causing climate change; will the Protocol make any difference if fully implemented; will the burden of implementation be equally shared? - have been answered to the satisfaction of the United Nations functionaries, most of the delegates, a handful of outspoken scientist-advocates, and an army of NGO obeservers.
Their answers: human activity may have an influence on global climate; full implementation of the Protocol will make no difference on the global climate; and the burden will be equally shared among 38 developed nations. This is sufficient justification for full and immediate implementation of the Protocol, and for the theme "work it out" to all differences that hinder implementation.
A part of the pressure to act quickly, if irrationally, is to establish the global structure for implementation so the failure to reach phase-one targets can be measured - and penalized - and so that the delegates can get on to the important work of setting the targets for phase two.
Phase one targets are to be met by 2008-2012. Since it has taken nearly nine years to negotiate the Protocol and the rules for implementation, the delegates know full well that they must soon begin negotiating the targets and terms of the next phase.
The delegates, and most of the observers here, seem to have little or no concern that the Protocol may be rejected. The arguments center around how strong the Protocol will be, not around the validity of the effort. Only thirty nations have ratified the Protocol since it was adopted; none of them are bound by the Protocol.
According to the Protocol's ratification provisions, it cannot go into force unless it is ratified by the United States, even if ratified by all the 150 nations that are not bound by it.
In the corridors, between sessions, there is talk of putting off some decisions until COP 7 next year, which will meet in Morocco. U.N. officials continue to press for decisions now, to "work it out," realizing that the possibility of unraveling the entire process is quite real.
Outside the global warming industry - and it has become a multi-billion dollar industry - people are growing weary of hearing the doom-and-gloom predictions. There is a growing "fatigue" about the whole idea. The demonization of dissenters is looking more like the propaganda it is, to a growing number of journalists and citizens, especially in the United States. The U.S. Congress appears to continue under the leadership of Republicans - a reality that strikes fear in the hearts of global warming advocates.
This fear is not openly discussed at the Hague. It is more felt than heard. It is real, nonetheless. Each day, the delegates arise with the sun, proceed to the Conference hall, and stick their heads deep into the sand to continue discussing the meaning of such lofty terms as regeneration, forests, mechanisms, and compliance.