Terrorism Becomes Favorite Excuse to Trash Environment

by Danielle Knight

This incongruity could haunt Washington in the year ahead.

"After the events of Sept. 11, if there is any reason for the United States to call for international, global approaches (it should also) join a global approach to the existing global problem of climate change," Jan Pronk, the Dutch environment minister, said at the time, as U.S. officials kept a hostile watch on talks in Marrakech, Morocco, on the Kyoto Protocol.

The 1997 climate change agreement, named after the Japanese city where it was drawn up, requires industrialized nations to reduce their heat-trapping emissions of greenhouse gases by an average of five percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Most scientists believe that these gases -- caused by the burning of fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal -- cause global warming, which in turn could cause widespread climate disruptions.

Bush has complained that it would be harmful to the U.S. economy to scale back on burning fuel and that the Kyoto agreement does not sufficiently oblige developing countries like China and India to commit to emission reduction targets.

U.S. participation in the agreement had been considered key because even with just 4.6 percent of the world's population, the United States accounts for roughly 25 percent of the global total of greenhouse gas emissions -- the most of any single nation.

After shunning the agreement over the summer and angering the rest of the world, the Bush administration promised to present an alternative to the Protocol. Since Sept. 11, there has been virtually no mention of any such plan.

"How long can the administration turn its back on issues the rest of world cares about -- from global warming to trade in small arms -- and expect broad support on issues like the war on terrorism?" asks Philip Clapp, president of the Washington-based National Environmental Trust.

Despite the U.S. boycott of the Kyoto Protocol, about 180 nations have decided to press forward with the agreement. For the Protocol to become international law, governments whose countries account for 55 percent of the industrialized world's carbon emissions must ratify it. If the European Union, Russia, and Japan stick to their word, Kyoto could become law early next year.

Bush and labor organizations have further angered environmentalists by arguing that plans to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are important to national security in the wake of the terrorist attacks. Bush has said the Alaskan exploitation would reduce U.S. reliance on Middle East oil.

However, critics of drilling in the refuge say the government itself estimates that opening up the preserve to drilling would not yield oil for at least seven years and then, only produce enough to supply the United States for 140 days.

"Giving oil companies a green light to drill a national treasure has nothing to do with addressing the crisis at hand," says Jamie Rappaport Clark, senior vice president for conservation programs at the National Wildlife Federation.

Environmentalists also worry that oil industry efforts to seek federal help to increase security at various facilities since Sept. 11 could end up trumping key environmental protection provisions.

In late October, Bracewell and Patterson, a Washington-based firm that represents several energy companies, submitted a report on the nation's energy facilities and pipelines to the White House Office of Homeland Security.

Besides recommending tax credits and other financing to help the industry improve security, the report suggested the creation of "security impact statements" that would override environmental impact statements. The latter provide ammunition for environmentalists and sometimes result in the introduction of pollution controls and other mitigation measures.

Debbie Boger, a senior Washington representative with the Sierra Club, calls the security statement recommendation "outrageous."

"The oil industry is taking advantage of this tragedy to challenge environmental laws it has always fought," she says.

The solution, environmentalists argue, is to move away from fossil fuels and nuclear energy toward a more diverse energy economy that incorporates renewable energy technologies -- such as wind, solar and biomass. Besides reducing U.S. dependence on imported oil, renewable energy infrastructure is not as dangerous as an oil pipeline or nuclear power plant if targeted by terrorists, adds Boger.

Environmentalists hope that ecology will enter the spotlight again as nations and organizations gear up for the World Summit on Sustainable Development scheduled for next year in Johannesburg, South Africa.

The summit, also known as Rio plus 10 because it will be held 10 years after the "Earth Summit" took place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, is expected to draw about 135 heads of state, civil society groups, UN agencies, and multilateral financial institutions.

"Considering the suffering state of the world, this event represents a shining possibility for change, one we may not see again in our lifetime," says a statement by the U.S.-based Citizens Network for Sustainable Development.

While some activists have been encouraged by the Summit, many environmentalists remain skeptical about what global conferences can accomplish on the ground in the absence of political will to prioritize the environment.

Gary Gardener, director of research at the Washington-based Worldwatch Institute, says that since the 1992 Earth Summit -- formally, the UN Conference on Environment and Development -- neither the environment nor development has fared well.

Over the past 10 years, forests have continued to shrink, soils have further eroded, water tables have fallen, fisheries have collapsed, and coral reefs and species have disappeared at unprecedented rates, says the think-tank, which tracks environmental trends.

"The environment continues to be undervalued and increasingly degraded, despite some encouraging advances," says Gardner. "After a decade of prosperity in much of the world, development is increasingly elusive for many poor nations -- and by some measures may be unravelling for wealthier nations."