Will George Bush wake up to the weather before it hits him? 11/7/01

SUSAN WATTS:
The Americans are doing their bit for climate change. This year, a quarter of the cars they buy will be big sports utility vehicles like this Lexus. And tomorrow's report by 3,000 of the planet's top climate scientists shows why it matters.

RADIO ANNOUNCER:
And now the forecast for the next 100 years. There will be the fastest rise in global temperatures since the start of civilisation, more droughts, hurricanes and floods. We can expect melting polar ice caps and rising sea levels threatening coastal regions and low-lying nations...

WATTS:
The forecast comes from scientists using some of the world's most powerful supercomputers to run models of the planet's climate into the next century. The Met Office's head of climate research, Dave Griggs, helped put together tomorrow's IPCC report.

Dr DAVE GRIGGS:
(Director, Climate Research, Met Office Hadley Research Centre)
All our projections of future temperature indicate that the rate of increase of temperature is likely to be unprecedented over the last 10,000 years. In the worst case scenario, the highest emissions of greenhouse gases could be as much as 5.8 degrees C by the year 2100. That sort of increase would have wide- spread effects around the globe. Arctic sea ice would retreat, possibly to the point where it would disappear during the summer. Sea level rise would increase in that worst case scenario by 88cm. So there would be widespread effects of that temperature increase around the globe.

WATTS:
The scientists are certain now, the planet is warming, and the last decade has been the hottest in 1,000 years. When President Bush said "no" to Kyoto in March, he knew it's the American people who are the chief culprits in pumping global warming gases into the atmosphere. But under Bush, economic prosperity is now the only item on the American agenda.

GEORGE W BUSH:
In terms of the CO2 issue, I will explain as clearly as I can today and every other chance I get that we will not do anything that harms our economy. Because first things first are the people who live in America. That is my priority.

WATTS:
Even after global warming hit home with floods in Houston, the President's own state, last month, he has stuck to his guns. Since then, the whole Kyoto agreement has started to come adrift. Japan is the other key country, President Koyzumi signalled that he won't sign up without America, and today, John Prescott's been trying, and failing, to persuade him to come round. Now with reports that Australia's reluctant too, there's a desperate last-minute effort to get everybody on board ahead of next week's crucial climate talks in Bonn.

UNNAMED MAN:
There's been a tremendous amount of spin on this. The US and Australia are the only countries that seem to be saying they wouldn't go ahead. Japan, despite press reports, is basically saying they would like the US on board. But the fact is the EU is central to this, the responsibility now rests on the EU's shoulders, and if European leaders stand firm, and say they will go ahead, Russia will too. Under those circumstances I think the developing countries will come on board, and Japan will come on board. Then we have a secure treaty. I believe it will only be a matter of time before others recognise this was the way to go.

WATTS:
The models show that time is running out, in 80 years time, the Met Office computers show the Arctic ice shrinking to nothing in summertime unless we take action now. Even advisors to companies like RTZ that have been targeted by environmentalists are saying keeping Kyoto makes sense.

TOM BURKE:
(Visiting Professor, Imperial College)
The really important thing for the corporate world is to have a stable policy framework in which you can plan and invest in the long-term. If Kyoto falls apart, all the bets will be off, and we won't know where we're going to be for a long time. That will slow down the deployment of all the technologies that are available, the vast range. Fuel cells, the other renewables, and even technologies like carbon storage which we might need, and going way out to the energy efficiency technologies, and things like making coal burn cleaner. We're not going to get rid of coal overnight. So finding ways to make it burn cleaner will be important. All of that will be slowed down if the regulatory pressure is taken off.

WATTS:
So what can nations under threat like the Maldives, that may vanish under rising sea levels do to protect their very existence? One option now being given serious consideration is that they take America to court for its refusal to work towards global emissions targets.

FARHANA YAMIN:
(Advisor, Association of Small Island States)
It is difficult holding a country like the US to account in any international tribunal. We have had many, many cases where the US has not recognised or walked out of international tribunals, but I think there are ways in which the legal avenues can help to clarify what the law means, and then help countries ensure that they do live up to those obligations.

WATTS:
Farhana Yamin was at a meeting tonight in London of lawyers, discussing what could be done. One option is to sue US corporations in the American courts for the damage they're doing. But pressure will have to come from consumers if there's any chance of Bush being shaken, and personal choices such as the cars Americans drive are still a million miles from any lip service they might pay to going green.

JEREMY VINE:
We're joined now from Washington by Republican Congressman John Peterson, a supporter of Bush, from Amsterdam by Robert Watson, architect of the report we're discussing, also former adviser to Bill Clinton. Here in the studio, environmental campaigner Bianca Jagger. Congressman Peterson first, the case that human activity is causing most global warming is backed in this report by 3,000 scientists, so it surely looks irresistible now?

CONGRESSMAN JOHN PETERSON:
(Republican, Pennsylvania)
There is thousands of scientists that disagree. I take data as the thing we should go by. It is flawed computer models that are giving us this terrible scenario. If you look at the earth were really warming the troposphere would be warming too. The balloon and satellite data refutes that. In fact, we are in a slight cooling. This is not sound science we are talking about, it is flawed computer data, and we should never make our decisions on that.

VINE:
Robert Watson?

Dr ROBERT WATSON:
(Chairman, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
That's completely incorrect. All surface data around the world shows that the Earth has warmed 0.6 degrees centigrade over the last 100 years. The balloon data over 40 years supports that, and the satellite data also supports it over all land areas. There are discrepancies over the tropical and subtropical oceans, and there are reasons why the troposphere should be different from the land.

VINE:
Congressman Peterson, when you look at this statistic that the Arctic ice is shrinking to nothing, and will shrink to nothing unless we do something, isn't that a physical representation of what is being discussed here?

PETERSON:
The Arctic ice has been melting for a long time. The "oceans rising" theory, the ocean scientists that I have talked to that go by data say the UN report was false and inaccurate. The thing you ought to look at is the power of the sun. If you look at (UNCHECKED NAME) work on the power of the sun, it charts the temperature. When the sun is hitting us more powerfully, temperatures rise. When the sun is hitting us with power, temperatures drop. It has a lot more to do with man. We are talking about America and CO2, our forests and great farmland is a great sink, it absorbs almost all the CO2 that we emit from industrial purposes. The data in that country has not been appropriately put forth.

VINE:
Let me put those points to Rob Watson.

WATSON:
There is no question, sea level is rising, glaciers are retreating, Arctic sea ice is melting. In response to a warming temperature. If the sun can change our climate, which it can, then greenhouse gases by the same mechanism can also change our planet. If we didn't have the greenhouse effect, the earth would be an ice planet 33 degrees centigrade. The large majority of all credible scientists have supported the IPCC process. 17 major national academies of science, including the US National Academy of Science have supported the IPCC process and the conclusions. There is no doubt, man is tampering with the Earth's climate and it is getting warmer.

VINE:
What about the congressman's point about his forests, that they are dragging the CO2 out of the air, and may be helping more than you are asserting in your report?

WATSON:
Probably 30-35% of all the scientists who participate in IPCC are American. There is excellent science in America. There is no question American forests are absorbing CO2. There is a wide range of views of what the number is. The US probably puts in 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon from burning fossil fuels, and our forests are absorbing 300-500 billion tonnes per year. So yes, the US forests, like many others in the world, are help to mitigate climate change, but they are not absorbing all of it. We know we are putting in 6.5 billion tonnes of carbon across the world from energy. We are putting in some from tropical deforestation, and yes, the natural forests of the world are partly offsetting this, but there is no question, use of energy today is increasing CO2, which is lead to a warmer world.

VINE:
Bianca Jagger, the point about Congressman Peterson's appearance here. He is not just speaking for himself, he is talking the language of President Bush at the moment?

BIANCA JAGGER:
(Environmental Campaigner)
He is indeed, and what he has forgotten to tell us is that President Bush commissioned a report, and the report was very much in accord with what the UN climate report said. Therefore, the other thing that he is forgetting to tell us is that the United States has increased the fossil fuel emissions by 60% since 1990, and we are supposed to be bringing down the fossil fuel emissions in the United States by 8%, if they were to ratify the Kyoto protocol, which is the reason why President Bush is refusing to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

VINE:
The politics is very difficult for you, isn't it, because they're not going to budge on it.

JAGGER:
I hope that they will because President Bush's polls show that the American public is getting very frustrated with his energy policies and with his environmental policies, and he is losing faith for the American public. So the question is does he really want to have the American people against him, because because of his position on the Kyoto protocol.

VINE:
Congressman, you are going to end up with the American people against you.

PETERSON:
The American people are with us. The Senate in 1999 voted 95 to 0 against Kyoto. It was a flawed treaty, if we want to deal with this issue we need to start over. The treaty won't change anything, it will allow the polluting developing countries to continue. It will only move the business from the current industrialised countries to the new developing countries who are allowed to pollute. It will take it out of the hands of the countries that are doing the best job at controlling pollution. Pollution control is the best in the UK and in the United States, and countries that have developed the proper scientific way to use fuel. The countries that the business will be going to will be countries that have lax standards, and don't have the pollution equipment in place.

VINE:
We were just hearing the simplest point possible being made in our report, which is that one in four people who buy a vehicle in the States at the moment buy these sports utility vehicles which are the gas guzzlers.

PETERSON:
That's right. All the world got drunk on cheap oil. When oil was $10 and natural gas was about a dollar a thousand. That allowed Americans to go back to the gas guzzling. The new prices on fuel in this country are changing people's purchasing habits already. The price of fuel today will change all that.

JAGGER:
What I would like to say is that the United States produces 25% of the fossil fuels emissions in the world. It is important to point out about developing countries, that China since 1990, has reduced by 17% the fossil fuels emission. So what do you have to say about that?

PETERSON:
We may be consuming more fuel, but we are burning coal cleaner, burning all our fuels cleaner. We are making great progress at the use of fuels in this country. We are not going to give up our economy and ship it to the developing countries. We have Americans, the poor of America will suffer, not the rich, the poor people will be put out of a job. We are not going to support that. We will support good sound science, and sound science has not proven that the Earth is warming. These statistics, the most recent report that Bush commissioned was reported wrong in the press. The press talked like it proved global warming. The report, which I've read from cover to cover, says it's inconclusive.

VINE:
Mr Watson, do you, as a former adviser to Bill Clinton, do you hear resonance in Mr Bush's words when he says that dealing with the issues in Kyoto is going to damage the American economy?

WATSON:
No it doesn't need to damage the American economy. 80% of all the greenhouse gases have been put in by the industrialised countries. The per capita emissions in industrialised countries far, far exceeds by factors of five, ten or more, the emissions from developing countries. So there is an equity issue here. But the key point is it's solid science, and was supported by the National Academy of Sciences. I've read the report from cover to cover also, and I've talked to the people that wrote that report. There are good economic approaches to reduce greenhouse gases in America, and Europe and Japan, that will not threaten the American economy. In fact I would agree with the congressman that we should not threaten the American, Japanese, or European economies. But there are approaches, especially if we use our forests to additionally absorb carbon, if we use an international trading system to buy and sell carbon across is world. Buy it where it is cheapest, which will be in India and China. There are also some excellent technologies that can be used in the US, Europe and Japan, to reduce emissions without changing our standard of living.

VINE:
Bianca Jagger, what about Kyoto? Can it survive without the Americans?

JAGGER:
It will be important to bring in the United States, but if the United States and President Bush decides to sabotage the Kyoto protocol, the rest of the world has the obligation to come forward and ratify the protocol.

VINE:
You can see why the Australians and Japanese are saying, "Why bother", when the American emissions are such a big part of it.

JAGGER:
That is the role we need to play. We need to ask the consumers and people around the world. Today is a day of action against (UNCHECKED NAME). The reason why we're doing that is because we want to send a clear message to President Bush, that we will stand up and make those corporations accountable, and we will boycott them. Of course, when he says that he thinks that all of these scientific reports are not good enough for him, it is because the only reason that it is good enough for President Bush is energy corporations and the money he received to be elected President.