EVEN to seasoned observers of the global warming debate, the unveiling in July of the US-backed alternative to the Kyoto protocol came as a genuine surprise. The agreement, known as the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, will promote the development and transfer of clean energy technologies between the US, Australia, Japan, South Korea, India and China. The White House says it will improve energy security, cut pollution and address the long-term challenge of climate change (see 鈥淭he big clean-up鈥�).
Supporters see the deal as complementary to the Kyoto protocol because it brings into the climate change arena not only the US but also the developing economic powerhouses of India and China. Critics say it undermines Kyoto by offering the world鈥檚 biggest carbon emitters a convenient way out of limits on fossil fuel use, and they prefer the example set by the nine US states that have agreed to bypass the White House and reduce their power plant emissions (see 鈥淐arbon bypass鈥�). Either way, the announcement represents a significant shift in the Bush administration鈥檚 approach to the issue.
There is a telling parallel here with a development in a completely different field. Interstate Bakeries, the corporate entity behind that most readily digestible of American icons, Wonder Bread, has revealed plans for an entirely whole-grain loaf made from hard white winter wheat. It will look, feel and taste like good old white bread 鈥� the kind that nutritionists have been trying to wean us off for decades.
Advertisement
The bread and the Asia-Pacific partnership have a number of features in common. Both deal with essential consumables: people must eat, economies must use energy. Both offer engineered solutions to problems that ultimately stem from human behaviour: in one case a preference for pale, squishy, nutritionally depleted bread; in the other a preference for cheap, convenient fossil fuels. And the most direct solution in both cases would be for us to modify our behaviour: switch to browner bread, use renewable energy.
Needless to say, people would prefer not to take the direct approach. Good nutrition and constrained energy use are not as enjoyable as the alternatives. This is precisely why the Asia-Pacific partnership demands closer scrutiny. It purports to be an economically painless way of dealing with climate change.
If it works, it will lead to genuine progress in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in a manner more palatable to industry than the Kyoto protocol. That would be good for us all. But there is also the danger that the pact will encourage a no-holds-barred approach to energy use with little benefit. Given that so many of us have trouble swallowing what鈥檚 good for us, we would do well to be wary.
