杏吧原创

A BIG challenge facing George Bush as he travels Europe this week is to
persuade his allies that he is serious about climate change. Rejecting the Kyoto
Protocol with its national targets for carbon emissions is one thing鈥攂ut
of deeper concern is the impression he has given that the science underlying
global warming is suspect. So, it鈥檚 encouraging that Bush鈥檚 talk from the Rose
Garden of the White House on Monday embraces that science, and contains the germ
of a new approach.

The President still hedges about scientific uncertainty, the 鈥渇atal flaws鈥� in
the Kyoto Protocol and 鈥渆nsuring continued economic growth and prosperity鈥� for
Americans. But he also argues that 鈥渙ur approach must be consistent with the
long-term goal of stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.鈥�
This is good to hear. Nothing is more vital to the future climate than getting
across this simple message. Whatever else is agreed about emissions targets
under Kyoto, son-of-Kyoto or any other agreement, this is the only goal that
matters.

Bush sees the protocol not as a stepping stone to that goal but as a
stumbling block. And his statement is an attempt to wind back the clock to the
days before his predecessor started the negotiations. Cynics will point out that
much of what he said could indeed have been delivered by his father a decade
ago. They will also argue that after naming greenhouse gases as the key factor
for our future climate, he spoils the message by observing that 鈥渘o one can say
with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level鈥�. True, but we can be sure
that every rise in emissions is a step in the wrong direction. As the UN鈥檚
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change points out, stabilising greenhouse
gases 鈥渨ill require CO₂ emissions to eventually drop well below current
濒别惫别濒蝉鈥�.

In his speech, Bush promises more research into the science of climate change
and the technology for stopping it. Good things both. But what鈥檚 missing are
specifics on how to cut carbon emissions today. He talks of using the market to
speed up the transition to a cleaner future. This is fine. But market incentives
will only bite when they are backed by legally binding targets.

The most obvious purpose of those incentives would be to kick the fossil-fuel
habit. Bush鈥檚 recently published energy plan stresses increasing electricity
supply and the primacy of coal, oil and natural gas. It鈥檚 hard to see how these
can be reconciled with his professed desire to keep atmospheric CO₂
under control. But there is hope. Bush talks of making progress on global
warming while protecting his citizens from economic draughts. He can do that.
Countless studies show that the path to a cleaner future offers as many economic
opportunities as penalties. It鈥檚 just that the opportunities lie in new
areas鈥攏ot in industries still addicted to fossil fuels.