Every Man A Giant: Science Proposes, But Politics Disposes

SCIENCE PROPOSES, BUT POLITICS DISPOSES

Science has presented persuasive evidence that emissions from human activities have forced an increase in average global temperatures, but politics will determine how the world deals with climate change when negotiations begin at Copenhagen. And politics means politicians, and we all know what that means.

Take, for example, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), who had this to say about the odds of getting a climate bill out of the Senate this session: "We are going to have a busy, busy time the rest of this year. And, of course, nothing terminates at the end of this year. We still have next year to complete things if we have to."

Unless that is reversed, Sen. Reid's assessment pretty much killed any remaining hopes of serious progress coming out of the climate talks in Copenhagen this December. In one fell swoop he managed to cut the legs out from under his own State Department negotiators while at the same time giving the upper hand to China and India' negotiators.

There are two main issues facing the negotiators. The first is reducing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and oil. The developing world and the developed world are playing the old game of "You go first." Each wants the other to be the first to make the major concession. I guess you could say that Senator Reid solved that problem nicely for the Chinese and Indian negotiators.

China and India have been betting that inadequate U.S. legislative efforts would give them enough cover to defer accepting painful emissions goals for their respective countries. It looks as though that bet paid off big time.

The other big issue at Copenhagen is how much money the developed world is willing to pledge to help developing nations with the costs of reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change.

The European Union has put out a number that was immediately denounced as inadequate. But given the lingering after-effects of the global economic crisis, it is hard to see the Europeans or anyone else committing the kind of money that many feel is needed. The economic crisis is a double whammy in that it also makes countries reluctant to adopt stringent emission reduction measures that would impose new costs on economic systems still struggling to recover.

So the bottom line is that the rich nations don't want to pony up serious money and the developing nations don't want to make serious cuts in their emissions. This would almost be funny were it not for that feeling in my gut that time is not on our side and failure is not an option. For some reason I keep hearing a line from the Crosby, Stills and Nash song Southern Cross: And we never failed to fail, it was the easiest thing to do.