By MERAIAH FOLEY, AP January 6, 2006
A leading Australian scientist believes the world has just 20 years
to turn the tide on global warming and that leaders at a summit in
Sydney next week must take concrete steps to tackle the problem.
Tim Flannery, a respected Australian scientist and author, says the
world's economic powerhouses must take drastic measures over the next
two decades before Earth's climate is irreversibly altered.
"We have to make deep, deep reductions in emissions within the next
20 years," he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "We
will have won or lost the battle for climate stability in that time."
Prof. Will Steffen, the director of environmental studies at
Canberra's respected Australian National University, said Flannery's
prediction is a "worst case" scenario, but is "not impossible."
"Certainly we're seeing evidence of global warming. The evidence is
quite clear now that the planet is warming compared to the baseline
temperature change over the last few thousand years," Steffen said.
"It's been warming quite rapidly over the last century and particularly
over the last couple of decades, those observations are quite clear."
Next week, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is scheduled to
meet with top-level officials from Australia, China, India, South Korea
and Japan to discuss ways of tackling the issue.
Along with the U.S. these countries account for nearly half the world's population, energy and economic output.
The White House says the talks will enhance rather than replace the
1997 Kyoto Protocol on global warming that both the U.S. and Australia
rejected because of its mandatory cuts in carbon dioxide, methane and
other gases.
The Kyoto treaty calls for 35 industrialized countries to cut their 1990 emissions levels by at least 5 percent by 2012.
China and India signed the treaty as developing nations, exempting
them from the first round of emissions cuts. Japan must cut emissions
by 6 percent below 1990 levels, and South Korea by 5 percent.
So far, little is known about the goals of the "Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate."
In July, the group issued a vision statement that talks of
developing, deploying and transferring technologies such as nuclear
power and clean coal technology in which greenhouse gases are extracted
and eliminated while burning coal.
Environmental group Greenpeace slammed next week's meeting as meaningless.
"As might be expected from a pact between six of the world's biggest
coal exporters and users, this appears to be a deal to do nothing," the
group said in a briefing statement. "At this stage, it contains no
provisions to reduce greenhouse pollution. With no targets, timetables
or even financial mechanisms, it can have no hope of meeting its stated
objective — assisting the development and transfer of climate-friendly
technology."
Earlier this week, James Connaughton, Chairman of the White House
Council on Environmental Quality, said the partnership would drum up
more private investment for goals including U.S. and Chinese plans to
improve energy efficiency in coal-burning power plants and cut acid
rain-causing sulfur dioxide emissions.
"I'd say that's wonderful news — and how will it be done?" said Flannery, responding to Connaughton's remarks.
Flannery said there is "no evidence in the world today" that a
voluntary program to reduce greenhouse emissions could work. Only
government regulation or "market-based instruments" — such as carbon
taxes, incentives and government subsidies on green energy — would have
the necessary impact, he said.
Frank Muller, a former adviser to U.S. President Bill Clinton and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, agrees.
"We need a price on carbon if its really going to drive
investment, whether that's a carbon tax or emissions trading," he said.
"You (also) need to address specific barriers to the adoption of
existing (energy efficient) technologies."
