The UN New York, March 12, 2005,

My friend, Gail, starts with the observation that despite the Bush
Administration’s pronouncement in early 2001 that the Kyoto Protocol
(KP)
was “dead”, the much debated agreement entered into force in February
2005.
It has now been formally approved by over 130 countries including all
fully
industrialized countries except the USA and Australia. Then Ms.
Karlsson
proceeds bringing up the following three excellent arguments:

1. NATIONAL SECURITY - “Although there is no quick solution to the
world’s
current reliance on fossil fuels, the US is missing opportunities to
minimize its dependence on fuel supplies from unstable regimes. The KP
would require the US to adopt policies emphasizing energy and fuel
efficiency which could dramatically reduce US consumption of imported
oil.
(Although the US could also adopt such policies independently, so far,
it
has not done so.) At the same time, renewable technologies using wind,
biofuels, and solar and water power, could promote energy independence
and
reduce the risks of blackouts and transmission line sabotage through
wider
adoption of on-site power generation systems”.

2. ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES - The US, at the Kyoto negotiations, under
the
Clinton Presidency, introduced to the KP the notion of - trading
emission
rights and reduction credits - it will be now the Europeans that will
manage
these trading mechanisms. In the US, the Chicago Climate Exchange has
also
begun trading voluntary emission credits, but since the US
Administration
deemed that there shall not be mandatory emission caps there is also
little
trading perspective. The end result being that - “US companies will
enjoy
some short-term advantages by not having to meet emission targets, but
may
lose out on the long term benefits of increased energy efficiency in
their
products and processes because of the exclusion from the international
trading system”.

3. MORAL LEADERSHIP - ‘It is the world’s poorest countries that are
expected to suffer the most from droughts, flooding, storms and natural
disasters related to climate change. People in those countries have
trouble
sympathizing with US concerns about economic costs that might be
incurred by
reducing the greenhouse gases released by its many cars, power plants,
and
factories. Even outpouring of disaster relief funds are unlikely to
outweigh perceptions that the US is unwilling to invest in measures
needed
to prevent future catastrophes”.

Ms. Karlson continues by mentioning that in 18 States, out of the US
total
51 States, there are responsible local officials ready to address the
problem - but this is clearly not an answer to the needed responsible
Washington approach; but despite her excellent arguments, her title
shows
that she missed the call of bravery. We all understand that without
the US
participation, the efforts to slow down the destruction of life on
earth as
it evolved during eons are difficult. The real question in the context
of
Kyoto, from her presentation is - CAN THE US PRESENT WAYS OF DOING
BUSINESS
SURVIVE? Can even the US survive in an unfavorable world that it
creates?

Furthermore, I was reminded to react to the INTERDEPENDENT because of
the
announcement today that President Bush is nominating Karen P. Hughes to
become Under-Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public
Affairs.
The papers say that “her job will be to improve America’s image
overseas”.
The problem is that she is seen as an accomplished player when it
comes to
her advocacy approach of defending the “is” - and we question this
“is”.

Will she be able to turn around and tell the Administration that people
overseas distrust the US because of its ways of going it alone when
topics
like the Kyoto Protocol are put on the table? Will she be able to be
an
advocate for a more acceptable America?

The US can muscle its way, by force of arms, when defending what it
perceives as its economic interests - but it can not win love and
appreciation by doing that. Karen P. Hughes fought for women rights in
the
conquered Afghanistan - and that was right. She can perform similar
positive feats when dealing with Middle East battle grounds, but her
past
advocacy simply has nothing to offer to any of the Europeans and
neither to
the main newly industrializing countries like - Brazil, India, China,
South
Africa, even the former Soviet Union, and so on. These countries will
be
helped by the Kyoto mechanisms in order to start holding down their CO2
emissions, as well as in order to decrease polluting and destroying
their
own environments; and by doing so they know that they also address the
global environment. These larger industrializing economies are in
effect
already now addressing these issues because their own population is
demanding so. They will work with the Europeans, and where will be the
US
in this scheme?

So, back again to the INTERDEPENDENT. Kyoto, as the beginning for a
series
of improvements in the slide of global environment and global climate,
will
have a hard time without the US participation. It will not die but
will
lead to better economics hand in hand with positive changes. The US,
if
left out, will become less competitive and will also encounter new
future
barriers to trade. Trying to change this by force will give no
results, as
this time the US will encounter as opponents western style democracies.