TIME: Almanac 1995

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1995 / TIME Almanac 1995.iso / time / 033092 / 0330330.000 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-03-25 | 6.1 KB | 130 lines

<text id=92TT0701> <title> Mar. 30, 1992: Will Bush Go to Rio? </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1992 Endangered Earth Updates Mar. 30, 1992 Country's Big Boom </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> ENVIRONMENT, Page 45 Will Bush Go to Rio? </hdr> <body> The environment is low on his priority list, but he can't afford the fallout of being a no-show at the Earth Summit By Michael D. Lemonlik--Reported by Andrea Dorfman/New York As moviegoers munch their popcorn before the main feature starts these days, many of them see an earnest commercial in which actor James Earl Jones urges President Bush to make a vital trip to Brazil this June. People who want to deliver the same message directly to the White House can call an 800 number and for $6.95 send a personalized "Earth Telegram" to Washington. These gimmicks are part of a determined campaign by environmental groups to pressure the President into being part of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, which is expected to be the largest gathering of world leaders in history--and could be the most important. But with less than three months left before the meeting, Bush has still not revealed his plans. Says Senator Al Gore, a Tennessee Democrat: "History has given President Bush a mandate to lead at this critical junction and he has not fulfilled it. It's a disgrace." The goal of the United Nations-sponsored summit is dauntingly ambitious: to chart a course that will halt the steady degradation of the earth's air, land and water and protect the multitudes of animals and plants threatened with extinction. The organizers of the meeting, officially called the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, intend to produce several landmark documents, including an Earth Charter (a set of principles designed to ensure environmental protection and responsible development), a program of action called Agenda 21 and treaties aimed at curbing climate change and limiting the loss of biodiversity. The danger is that these agreements will be vague and unenforceable, a cosmetic solution not backed by political will. If so, much of the blame will rest with the U.S. In a series of pre-summit meetings at which agreements are being negotiated, American delegates have too often been naysayers, not leaders. A report released this month summing up the Administration's official attitude toward the issues has been widely criticized as being long on statistics but short on solutions. The paper gives little attention to the Rio summit's central theme: the need for sustainable development in which economic growth no longer results in the net destruction of natural resources. For example, the Administration acknowledges the need for a global policy to protect forests, but offers no specific proposals. Most disturbing has been the White House's resistance to any targets or timetables for cutting down on production of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, which may lead to global warming. The European Community wants to reduce CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, but America's refusal to go along has effectively stymied the latest round of climate-change negotiations. Environmentalists, and even the conference organizers, argue that the U.S., as the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases, has an enormous responsibility to be cooperative on this issue. The Americans say that adopting specific goals not only would be costly but could also put U.S. industries at a competitive disadvantage in the world marketplace. That is a questionable assumption. The changes advocated in drafts of documents like Agenda 21--such as commitments to mass transit and energy efficiency--could ultimately improve Americans' standard of living. A recent study coordinated by the Union of Concerned Scientists contends that slashing CO2 emissions by 70% over the next 40 years would cost the U.S. economy $2.7 trillion, but would trim fuel and utility bills by $5 trillion. Reducing waste and pollution will take fundamental changes in the American economy, but, says the U.N.'s Maurice Strong, secretary-general of the Earth Summit, "the U.S. hasn't yet realized the economic consequences of not making those changes." The real competitive disadvantage could come from failing to protect the environment. Already Japan is developing a 100-year plan to capitalize on environmental concerns by designing "green" technologies, and European nations are moving in the same direction. Says one observer at the pre-summit meeting now being held at the U.N.: "Once again the U.S. is going to be left behind in the dust of a Honda." In response, the Administration argues that it has done as much as any government to fight global warming. Speaking at the preparatory meeting this month, William Reilly, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, cited the strengthening of the Clean Air Act, Bush's promise to plant 1 billion trees a year and the EPA's Green Lights program, which helps state governments and corporations install energy-efficient lighting. Moreover, the U.S. has pledged to contribute $75 million to international funds designed to aid developing countries in efforts to reduce production of greenhouse gases. Reilly is convinced that the U.S. will sign on to a climate-change treaty and all other agreements that come out of the Earth Summit. Unless negotiations collapse, say White House insiders, Bush will almost surely decide to go to Rio. It will be difficult for him to beg off, since the leaders of the other six major industrial powers are expected to attend, Congress is pressing him to make the trip, and the Democrats are poised to blast his record on the environment. But if the President's motives are just political, the journey south will be an empty exercise. The summit cannot succeed unless the U.S. gets into the spirit of Rio and does its part to create strong new covenants to protect the planet. </body> </article> </text>