US Ambassador Thomas Foley began his talk at Dublin City University (DCU) by telling the audience what he hoped to accomplish with this appearance. He started by trying to frame the issue in terms of where the US stood relative to other countries in Europe as regards energy consumption and reducing carbon emissions as suggested in the Kyoto Protocol.
The ambassador was on pretty firm ground here, and some of the facts he referenced may have come as a surprise to some audience members. He got the bad news out of the way early by acknowledging that the US was indeed the world’s biggest polluter in terms of generating greenhouse gases. He duly noted statistics which, for example, show that on a per-person basis, the US generated more than twice as much carbon-based waste as the average German, three times more than the French and 40 per cent more than the average Irish resident.
From this point on, however, Foley moved into attack mode. He said that while the US was the largest polluter in terms of total carbon waste generated by a single country, it would be overtaken this year by China. While I think this comment was a bit of a stretch, since this won’t actually happen until 2009, I will nonetheless concede the point. But the ambassador also failed to mention that China has over one billion more citizens than the US, which means the Chinese will still only be generating 25 per cent of the carbon waste that is generated by the average American once it does become the world’s biggest polluting nation. Foley went on to defend the US decision not to sign the Kyoto Protocol because it assigned mandatory emission limits for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to each signatory nation. He said that the 30 per cent cuts in carbon emissions demanded of them would have caused serious economic problems had the US agreed to these limitations.
From this point on, however, Foley moved into attack mode. He said that while the US was the largest polluter in terms of total carbon waste generated by a single country, it would be overtaken this year by China. While I think this comment was a bit of a stretch, since this won’t actually happen until 2009, I will nonetheless concede the point. But the ambassador also failed to mention that China has over one billion more citizens than the US, which means the Chinese will still only be generating 25 per cent of the carbon waste that is generated by the average American once it does become the world’s biggest polluting nation. Foley went on to defend the US decision not to sign the Kyoto Protocol because it assigned mandatory emission limits for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to each signatory nation. He said that the 30 per cent cuts in carbon emissions demanded of them would have caused serious economic problems had the US agreed to these limitations.
Foley then noted that Australia, which like the US relies on coal to generate much of its electricity, had also declined to sign the Kyoto Protocol, and went on to say that the US wanted to ensure that carbon gas emission limits were also applied to countries such as China, which is not required to cut emissions under the current treaty. I must agree with him on this issue.
The ambassador then pointed out that even though the US had not agreed to the limits, it had nonetheless done a better job of cutting the rate of growth in its carbon gas emissions than the EU countries that have signed the protocol. It may have come as a bit of a surprise to some in the audience that the US had cut this rate of growth to a level that was 40 per cent less than the EU average. But he also failed to mention that it is much easier to cut one’s rate of growth when you are already generating waste at a much higher level than nations you are comparing yourself to.
President Bush’s strategy to tackle global warming basically relies on scientific developments and voluntary measures, rather than curbs on greenhouse gas emissions. As part of his sales pitch to persuade the audience that the Bush Administration is seriously doing something to address the problem of global warming, Ambassador Foley outlined three methods being used to cut US greenhouse gas emissions.
First he mentioned greater energy efficiency being derived from the use of low wattage fluorescent lightbulbs and better home insulation. He noted that even if this method was broadly utilised it would, at best, result in a 20 to 30 per cent increase in energy efficiency which would be equivalent to the growth of energy consumption.
Secondly, he referred to the use of alternative sources of energy such as wind, hydro, solar and nuclear power. He cited France as a country that emits less greenhouse gases per person, largely because it derives 70 per cent of its electricity from nuclear energy. He then stated that while the US currently obtains about 18 per cent of its electricity from such sources, their contribution was likely to drop in the near future due to the long lead times involved in bringing these types of power generation on-line. In fact, it has been almost 30 years since the US ordered its last nuclear plant, due to the US public’s fears about nuclear accidents after the near meltdown at Three Mile Island and the subsequent release of the anti-nuclear plant movie The China Syndrome.
Finally, the Ambassador alluded to the recapture of carbon emissions and sequestration of greenhouse gases through the use of rapid reforestation, which involves planting new forests on land which is no longer being used for agriculture. The impact of this program is hard to quantify, but suffice to say it is not going to result in major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
By outlining all of the available ‘voluntary’ measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Ambassador Foley had thus set the stage for what President Bush touts as the ultimate solution – new technologies. The ambassador cited the need for technological breakthroughs in the development of fuel cells and nuclear fusion as sources of clean energy which could then be used to replace carbon-based energy sources. But to realise this goal entails continuing to grow economically so that money can be generated to invest in these new technology solutions.
Noticeably absent from Foley’s discussion of President Bush’s proposals to reduce greenhouse gases are federal government regulations to increase automobile fuel economy standards and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The ambassador noted that individual states like California had always led the way in this area and that the US government would follow once a consensus had emerged at the state level. However, as I mentioned in my previous column, the US Supreme Court recently chastised Bush appointees at the EPA for refusing to regulate automobile emissions of greenhouse gases as mandated by existing federal laws.
The ambassador then pointed out that even though the US had not agreed to the limits, it had nonetheless done a better job of cutting the rate of growth in its carbon gas emissions than the EU countries that have signed the protocol. It may have come as a bit of a surprise to some in the audience that the US had cut this rate of growth to a level that was 40 per cent less than the EU average. But he also failed to mention that it is much easier to cut one’s rate of growth when you are already generating waste at a much higher level than nations you are comparing yourself to.
President Bush’s strategy to tackle global warming basically relies on scientific developments and voluntary measures, rather than curbs on greenhouse gas emissions. As part of his sales pitch to persuade the audience that the Bush Administration is seriously doing something to address the problem of global warming, Ambassador Foley outlined three methods being used to cut US greenhouse gas emissions.
First he mentioned greater energy efficiency being derived from the use of low wattage fluorescent lightbulbs and better home insulation. He noted that even if this method was broadly utilised it would, at best, result in a 20 to 30 per cent increase in energy efficiency which would be equivalent to the growth of energy consumption.
Secondly, he referred to the use of alternative sources of energy such as wind, hydro, solar and nuclear power. He cited France as a country that emits less greenhouse gases per person, largely because it derives 70 per cent of its electricity from nuclear energy. He then stated that while the US currently obtains about 18 per cent of its electricity from such sources, their contribution was likely to drop in the near future due to the long lead times involved in bringing these types of power generation on-line. In fact, it has been almost 30 years since the US ordered its last nuclear plant, due to the US public’s fears about nuclear accidents after the near meltdown at Three Mile Island and the subsequent release of the anti-nuclear plant movie The China Syndrome.
Finally, the Ambassador alluded to the recapture of carbon emissions and sequestration of greenhouse gases through the use of rapid reforestation, which involves planting new forests on land which is no longer being used for agriculture. The impact of this program is hard to quantify, but suffice to say it is not going to result in major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
By outlining all of the available ‘voluntary’ measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Ambassador Foley had thus set the stage for what President Bush touts as the ultimate solution – new technologies. The ambassador cited the need for technological breakthroughs in the development of fuel cells and nuclear fusion as sources of clean energy which could then be used to replace carbon-based energy sources. But to realise this goal entails continuing to grow economically so that money can be generated to invest in these new technology solutions.
Noticeably absent from Foley’s discussion of President Bush’s proposals to reduce greenhouse gases are federal government regulations to increase automobile fuel economy standards and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The ambassador noted that individual states like California had always led the way in this area and that the US government would follow once a consensus had emerged at the state level. However, as I mentioned in my previous column, the US Supreme Court recently chastised Bush appointees at the EPA for refusing to regulate automobile emissions of greenhouse gases as mandated by existing federal laws.
Nor was any mention made of a separate and unanimous Supreme Court ruling which said that the EPA also had authority over factories and power plants that add generating capacity or make renovations that increase emissions of air pollutants. One must therefore conclude that the Bush Administration’s refusal to uphold existing federal laws governing greenhouse gas emissions by automobiles and power plants is seriously at odds with the ambassador’s contention that the President is very concerned about this problem and is actively working to address it.
While I believe Ambassador Foley was being sincere and honest in discussing what he believes the Bush Administration is doing to address climate change, the actions of the administration thus far speak much louder than Foley’s words.
Charles Laffiteau is a lifelong US Republican from Dallas, Texas, and one of 80 students worldwide selected for a place on DCU's postgraduate programme in Globalisation, International Relations and Conflict.
