What We're Dealing With, Part ___

Sorry, can't remember which number this is in the series.

So why am I on such an environmental tilt this morning? Perhaps it's because of this article, which once again demonstrates that the debate over the environment is filled with irreality and that one needs to reach far beyond the headlines if he or she wants to get a real handle on things.

Remember the Kyoto Treaty? You know, the treaty negotiated by 156 countries with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions? The same treaty which President Clinton negotiated and signed but never submitted to the Senate for ratification? Yes, the treaty which President Bush has also refused to send to the Senate. You know, the one that Bush has been roundly criticized by people and governments around the world (most specifically Europe) for not sending to the Senate? That one.

Well, it seems that only two European countries, Britain and Sweden, are currently honoring their commitments established under the Kyoto Protocol.

Although the US is portrayed as the ecological villain for refusing to sign up to the agreement, 10 out of the 15 European Union signatories - including Ireland, Italy and Spain - will miss their targets without urgent action, the Institute for Public Policy Research found. France, Greece and Germany are given "amber warnings" and will only achieve the objectives if planned policies are successfully carried out.

But wait, there's more!

It seems that in Europe, CO2 emissions are actually increasing:

Recent figures show carbon dioxide emissions increasing in 13 out of the 15 countries, including Britain, the report says.

While I am concerned about global warming and the environment more generally, and would like to see the US do more in both of these areas, isn't it the height of hypocrisy to condemn Bush and the US for not signing a treaty with which even signatories cannot or will not comply? Isn't it rather silly to argue that Bush paved the road to bad relations with Europe by not signing on to a treaty with which he had legitimate concerns (primarily the domestic economic costs and the fact that developing nations like China and India did not have targets for reduction, even though they are the greatest source of emmissions growth)? Especially, now, in light of the fact that most of Europe is not even compliant? Isn't it better to stay out of a treaty you cannot commit to rather than to sign up and miss the targets? Where is the outrage in Europe? Where are our own dmoestic environmentalists? Why are they not marching in protest of Italy, Ireland, Spain, Germany and France?

The fact is that European governments have been triple-dipping on Kyoto for far too long. They received short-term political mileage out of signing the protocol. Then, they used the US as a whipping boy for not signing. But what many of us who have followed the situation have known for several years is that European governments realized that they were not compliant and would not make the targets set out by the agreement. So not only were they making political hay at America's and Bush's expense, they were doing so knowing all the while that they themselves were unlikely to meet their obligations under Kyoto. Stultifying, to say the least! Of course, domestic environmental groups and Bush opponents have been making similar arguments since Kyoto was signed, and many of them knew the truth as well. So don't go looking to any of those folks if you're in search of intellectual honesty or the straight scoop on the environment.

That's just what we're dealing with.