EDITORIAL Tip from pollution lobby: CO2 is good for
you
Some industrialists now claim carbon dioxide is good for us.
Certain U.S. corporations, led by the Petroleum Institute, are
adopting a position similar to that of the tobacco companies who until recently
insisted there was no proof that smoking caused lung cancer. The Petroleum
Institute and its friends have developed a plan to spend millions of dollars to
persuade the public that the carcinogen-laden air of our smog-bound cities is
not the harbinger of catastrophic global warming.
Some companies have even enlisted the aid of what The Wall
Street Journal has called renegade scientists to argue that
more carbon dioxide in the air we breathe will give us a better life.
In 1992, at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, most of the worlds
nations were persuaded by the scientific evidence that emissions of greenhouse
gases had to be cut drastically. A follow-up treaty signed at Kyoto last
December specifies that these emissions must be brought, on average, 5.2
percent below the 1990 levels by 2008-2012.
Actually, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had urged
the Kyoto conference to go much farther. This large group of authoritative
scientists who are advisers to the United Nations urged that emissions be cut
to 60 percent below the 1990 level by 2000. They predict widespread climate
disruptions in the next century in the absence of effective action to restore
the balance of the earths climate and halt global warning.
The United States, which is today the worlds No. 1
greenhouse gas producer, with 22 percent of global emissions, has not only not
ratified the Kyoto Treaty. It is encouraging growth of greenhouse gas emissions
overseas, especially in China and India, both of whom under present policies
are likely to exceed the U.S. level of emissions by 2015.
Fossil fuels -- oil, gas, coal -- are among the most popular
investments made by the World Bank, the U.S. Overseas Private Investment
Corporation and other international financial institutions. China is the No. 1
recipient of World Bank loans, followed by India; both are heavy users of
carbon-rich coal. Chinas coal is also rich in sulfur, and the expanding
use of coal as China industrializes is already creating acid rain problems for
neighboring Japan. With the United States the biggest contributor to the World
Banks coffers, this means that U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing the
polluting, carbon intensive industries of India and China.
Awareness of the threat to the survival of the human race is far
greater in Europe than here in the United States, and its impact has produced a
welcome rift in the international oil industry. While Exxon and other U.S. oil
companies fight the Kyoto agreement, Royal Dutch/Shell, the worlds
largest publicly traded oil company, and other European oil interests have
withdrawn from the Global Climate Coalition because of irreconcilable
differences with Exxon and the other U.S. oil companies. The Europeans
support the Kyoto treaty and prudent precautionary measures against
pollution and global warning.
The pollution lobby has powerful supporters in Congress, and this
situation is unlikely to change until we have radical controls over corporate
funding of political candidates. But there are signs that public opinion is
being aroused. Exxon was given a rude shock last month when a shareholder
motion bitterly fought by management won 4.6 percent of the votes, with a
further 3 percent abstentions. The motion, sponsored by the Interfaith
Committee on Corporate Responsibility and several religious orders, called for
the creation of a committee of outside directors for an independent review of
the impact on climate change of Exxon policies and practices.
Similar motions challenged the policies and practices of General
Motors and Ford in recent weeks. And the shareholders will challenge Exxon
again next year and every year until it sees what was obvious to the 138
nations who signed the Kyoto treaty last December.
National Catholic Reporter, June 19,
1998
|