Is Bush right to ignore climate change?
Even
the Pentagon thinks global warming and climate change are a threat
to US national security, but still Bush refuses to honour the Kyoto
protocols. Why?
George W Bush’s stated reason for pulling out
of the Kyoto agreement in March 2001 was that it “would cause
serious harm to the U.S. economy”. In saying this, he made it
clear that monetary, not environmental concerns would guide his policy
on global warming. But is Bush right? Will staying outside any emissions
reduction treaty, and effectively ignoring climate change, benefit
the US economy?
Fossil fuels are the life-blood of the US economy.
Bush said that caps on carbon dioxide emissions would lead to “significantly
higher” energy prices as power generators would suffer hefty
financial penalties for exceeding their emissions allowances, or pay
higher prices for cleaner fuels such as natural gas. In the longer
term, shifting to renewable energy would require huge investment in
new technology and costly changes to distribution networks.
Bush also said that the exemption of large parts
of the developing world from emissions reductions would damage the
competitiveness of US industry. A study commissioned by the US Department
of Commerce predicted Kyoto would reduce GDP by up to $250bn and cause
the loss of 1.6m jobs by 2010. Many of these jobs would migrate to
economic rivals like India or China.
However, there is another aspect to Bush’s
reluctance to kick the fossil fuel habit.
Control of world oil supply has been the core of
US foreign policy for over 50 years. Since the oil crises of the Seventies,
the US has located enormous naval power and numerous military bases
in the Persian Gulf, which produces a quarter of the world’s
crude oil and holds two-thirds of the proven reserves. Since 11 September
2001, these bases have multiplied across Central Asia, and last year
the US took control of the world’s second largest oil reserves,
in Iraq. In 2004, it will likely spend $60bn supporting troops in
the region.
Such a huge military commitment isn’t only
about protecting US access to Gulf oil. According to Michael Klare,
author of Resource Wars: “Control over the Persian Gulf translates
to control over Europe, Japan and China. It’s about having our
hand on the spigot.” America’s main rivals are very dependent
on Gulf oil. Europe, Japan and China respectively get 30, 73 and 58
per cent of their oil imports from the Gulf. If they were to switch
to domestic sources of renewable energy, this dependence would decrease,
along with US influence over them. By staying out of Kyoto, the US
could effectively block any agreement on carbon dioxide emissions
reductions and maintain its control.
Purely in terms of economic and strategic self-interest,
Bush may have a point; the US gets substantial benefits from the status
quo. However, most scientific opinion agrees that this status quo
will lead to global warming and significant climate change.
One of the most apocalyptic papers on this subject
was produced by the Pentagon in October 2003. It is a worst-case scenario,
predicting of 15 years of rising temperatures, melting polar icecaps
and erratic rainfall, followed by a sudden collapse of the Gulf Stream
(a current of warm water that moderates the climate of Europe and
the eastern USA) plunging the North Atlantic region into another ice
age.
The environmental effects would be drought and a
shorter growing season, coastal flooding, increased storm and wave
activity on the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and freezing temperatures
across Western Europe and the Eastern United States. The expected
consequences for the human population are food shortages, mass movements
of refugees, closing of borders, escalating global warfare and serious
disruption to ocean shipping.
While the report predicts that the US would not be
hit as hard as others, the cost of adapting to new weather patterns
and agricultural conditions would be high. Securing borders and protecting
overseas interests, such as the Persian Gulf, would require ever-more
expensive military interventions. These conditions would also be anathema
to the current regime of global business. Recent growth in international
trade and investment has created a booming world economy, in which
the US has enormous stakes. Large-scale disruption to international
shipping, uncertain access to energy imports, a demographic catastrophe
in Asia, or widespread border conflict would cut trans-national corporations
off from their manufacturing bases, from their raw materials and destroy
their export markets. They would be severely damaged, as would the
US economy, which is tied to their success.
Admittedly, the Pentagon’s scenario is entirely
hypothetical; we can’t even predict the weather accurately for
48 hours, let alone 100 years. But even if global catastrophe is averted,
the consensus in the scientific community is that climate change is
likely to cause significant problems in several parts of the world.
The most likely victims would be the developing countries, who are
less able to adapt to sudden changes.
Consider the most predictable consequence of global
warming - a rise in sea levels due to melting polar ice. While low-lying
areas of Europe, Japan and the US may be able to build effective coastal
defences, several key economic centres in Asia, such as Bangkok, Bombay
or Shanghai could be at risk from flooding. The consequences for impoverished
countries such as Bangladesh would be disastrous, sending millions
of refugees across borders to become a burden on their neighbours.
There is no guarantee that the US could shield itself
from such a crisis. The interconnectedness of the world economy is
so extensive that contagion of localised problems poses a very real
threat. The 1997 East Asian financial crisis spread to Russia, Australia
and Brazil. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 slowed economic growth and
trade the world over as the US went into recession and tightened security.
Both are minor upheavals compared to the possible
consequences of climate change. Imagine the effect on US manufacturers
if Asia, hit hard by climate change, went from being an economic powerhouse
to a basket case. You wouldn’t be able to get a new pair of
Nikes for love nor money.
In The Compulsive Empire, Robert Jervis wrote: “Most
countries are concerned mainly with what happens in their immediate
neighbourhoods; but for a hegemon, the world is its neighbourhood.”
Ending fossil fuel dependence may reduce US strategic and economic
dominance, but if Bush wants to protect his country’s wealth
in the long term, he cannot ignore the grave threat climate change
poses to the world economy.
