A load of hot air

News: Prescott's race to save deal on climate change

IT is, we are told, a disaster of global proportions. We have condemned our children's children to death by drowning, or possibly suffocation. The world's newspapers have almost all concluded that the failure of talks in The Hague threatens, as The Independent on Sunday reported, "a catastrophic change in the world's climate".

 Before we get too carried away, it is worth looking at the scope of the discussions. The conference was called to consider the implementation of the 1997 Kyoto agreement on cutting greenhouse gases. So far, only Britain has made substantial progress in reducing its carbon dioxide production, and environmentalists want clearer rules on how to meet the Kyoto terms. In particular, there are disagreements over whether countries should be allowed to sell their quotas to each other, and whether forests which soak up pollutants should be allowed to offset cuts in emissions. After much talking, these issues remain unresolved. But, even on the most optimistic scenario, Kyoto would bring about only a marginal slowing - perhaps by four per cent - of the projected global warming over the next century.

 In any case, the assumptions on which the Kyoto agenda rests are far from proved. Some scientists dispute whether global warming is really occurring, pointing to the fact that satellite-based thermometers have registered little change in temperature, while terrestrial gauges, which tend to be situated at the edge of towns, may simply be feeling the effects of urbanisation. Others accept that it is occurring, but believe that it is caused by the cyclical warming and cooling of the sun, not by man-made gases. Still others argue that moderate climate change is, on balance, desirable, since its main effects will be warmer winters, wetter deserts and - because of the increased CO2 levels - faster-growing plants.

 To many of the politicians gathered at The Hague, though, science was only one of several considerations. Had cutting greenhouse gases been their sole concern, they would not have cared how the cuts were distributed, provided they happened. But the United States's sensible proposal for tradeable emissions quotas seemed insufficiently puritanical.

 There was a sense that we should all suffer a little for the sake of the planet. In particular, many Europeans resent America's low taxes, and see the Kyoto agenda as a way to reduce the competitive advantage enjoyed by the Anglo-Saxon economies. Quite rightly, the Americans refused to be bullied. The gulf between them and the Europeans was not insurmountable but, for political reasons, no one much minded going home without a resolution. Once John Prescott took on the role of mediator, hopes for an agreement were pretty much doomed. And so a relatively minor conference ended without issue.