Bush blunders on climate treaty

But Americans have precious little to celebrate, thanks to the Bush administration's disgraceful refusal to sign on to the protocol, which aims to reduce the fossil-fuel emissions that contribute to global warming.

The administration's pathetic lament is that the treaty is unfair to the United States, which is the single largest emitter of greenhouse gases and thus the single biggest culprit in degrading the atmosphere. Poor or developing countries such as China and India are not required to make the emission cuts that the United States would be obliged to make under the treaty

This is a twisted concept of fairness. Even so, by standing aside, the administration forfeited any hope of persuading other nations to accept its novel argument of what's fair to require of the world's biggest greenhouse-gas polluter. The fact that President Bush declined to participate suggests he knows the U.S. argument is so flimsy it's not to be taken seriously. But if there were a case to be made for requiring more of poorer nations, this was the place to make it.

The administration insists it has its own plan for reducing greenhouse emissions, but if so, there's little real sign of it. Its overriding emphasis is on securing more oil to burn, not on developing more climate-friendly energy sources. And the administration surely is getting no help from Congress, which has yet to agree on an energy bill.

The principles of the Kyoto Protocol agreed to in Marrakesh Nov. 10 require a modest start on emission reductions. Those industrial countries that ratify it -- at least 55 countries must do so for it to take effect -- will be required as a group to cut emission by 2012 to levels 5 percent below emissions levels in 1990. That appears achievable.

The treaty includes a useful mechanism that allows an industrial country to get credit for reducing its own emissions by investing in pollution cleanup projects in other, presumably poorer countries. This should spur a market for energy-efficient technologies.

This key feature illustrates the depth of the administration's blundering in refusing to participate. It represents a lost opportunity for the United States, which could have offset its own emission reduction requirements by investing in cleanup of poor countries' emissions and emerged as a winner on two fronts. Instead, oilman Bush chose to play the obstinate international pariah.

"Other countries have chosen their path, and our answer is still no," one administration official told The New York Times after the protocol was approved.

The value of the Kyoto Protocol is not that it makes huge immediate strides in reducing emissions. It's that it sets up a framework and definitions of targets, measuring and penalties as well as the habit of compliance.

"That's as good as it gets in international relations," David D. Doniger, director of climate programs for the Natural Resources Defense Council, quite rightly said.

Add P-I Opinion headlines to