The United States took exception with the inference that it is leaderless when it comes to taking a stance on global warming. The Bush administration has said repeatedly that it is committed to cutting greenhouse gases. But, its strategy is to do so in incremental steps -- a process that will continually snowball once the available technologies become commercially available. Drastic measures would devastate the national economy, it adds, noting that it is investing in the hydrogen economy and clean coal technologies.

"We think that the United States has been leading in terms of its ground-breaking initiatives," says Paula Dobriansky, an under secretary at the U.S. State Department, at a news conference during climate talks in Nairobi in November.

The United States comprises about 5 percent of the world's population but it consumes around 30 percent of the global energy supply. It's therefore the greatest contributor to carbon dioxide, which is considered one of the main components of global warming. But, the real threat to increased carbon dioxide levels is expected to come from emerging nations such as India and China.

According to the World Metrological Organization, the concentrations of carbon dioxide will swell again in 2006. It rose by 0.5 percent in 2005 to reach 379 parts per million. Water vapor is the most common element in greenhouse gases, followed by carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. Most scientists that have studied global warming say that the burning of fossil fuels and specifically coal is the leading contributor to the phenomenon.

The experts say that global temperatures have risen one degree over the last century. A continued increase would run the risks of melting glaciers, rising sea levels, safe drinking water shortages and massive outbreaks of malaria, according to a report released recently by the British government. Such outcomes, it adds, would create more economic devastation than the Great Depression of the 1920s.

"While the Kyoto Protocol is a crucial step forward, that step is far too small," says Annan. "And as we consider how to go further still, there remains a frightening lack of leadership.''

Scientific Issue

Altogether, the U.N. reports that 34 industrial nations increased their greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2004. The United States, which contributes two-fifths of the industrialized world's greenhouse gases, saw emission increases of 1.3 percent in those years. Since 1990, emission levels have risen by 16 percent in this country.

The Bush administration has taken the position that until the technologies are developed to effectively curb greenhouse gases, it would champion a voluntary approach that sets limits in conjunction with a cap-and-trade system whereby participants that meet certain standards can sell their credits to those that cannot achieve them. The president says that his voluntary initiative provides the right incentives and would lead to alternative forms of energy, conservation efforts, and investments in clean generation.

The Cato Institute applauds that position. According to Jerry Taylor, senior fellow, reducing greenhouse gases would compound poverty -- the number one killer on this planet and the key reason why poor countries are unable to improve their ecologies. "Any honest cost-benefit calculation using mean estimates regarding future warming and the costs of abatement demonstrates that global warming insurance is a bad investment -- the premiums dwarf the value of the advertised benefits."

Others disagree with this thinking, noting that in the United States, global warming is viewed as an ideological issue and not a scientific one. Global warming is a theory that has continued to gain credibility as 99 percent of climate scientists say it is real, says Peter Cook, investment officer for the carbon finance unit of the International Finance Corp. in Washington, D.C. It is their opinion that matters most, he adds, not those of academics, financiers and utility CEOs.

Those that disagree with all but the voluntary approaches to controlling greenhouse gas emissions also use scare tactics, he adds. There's a difference, however; while sound science provides a reason to be "scared," environmental regulations have in many ways enhanced economic progress, Cook continues. Coal plants built today, for example, are much cleaner and more efficient than ones constructed in 1970.

"Will the current theory of global warming hold up for all time?" asks Cook. "Maybe not, but given the best advice of our climate scientists now, should we not adopt the precautionary principle and use all possible strategies to stabilize and then decrease the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere? The debate on economically efficient energy policies is an important one, but it does not diminish the scientific case for global warming."

By all accounts, the phenomenon is real and it will profoundly change the way that utilities generate electricity. Governments around the globe generally take the issue seriously, although the timelines as well as the approach by which they achieve greenhouse gas reductions differ. For its part, the U.N. wants all countries to amplify and expedite their efforts.

Copyright © 1996-2006 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.