::::::::
When it comes to doing something about global warming, we see a lot of action on the scientific front but relatively little reaction on the political front. This was nicely summed up in an essay by Ian McDonald that appeared in the August 30, 2009 edition of the Starbroek (Guyana) News.
"There exists in the world today two entirely separate spheres of activity. One is the sphere of rhetoric, impressive prepared speeches, mutual backslapping, declarations of good intent, and agreed communiqués. The other sphere is the sphere of reality, cold hard facts, military and economic strength ... Each of these spheres function quite separately, has its own apparatus of power and influence, administers its own procedures and proceedings, sets its own objectives and achieves its own successes. ... Progress is only made when a way is found to connect the sphere of good intentions with the sphere of practical results. Failing that, the spirits of doable compromise and real progress will always remain imprisoned in the vasty deep of interminable talk-shops."
Well, from where I sit in the United States we have a long way to go before those two spheres of influence overlap. Coming fresh off of a bruising battle on health care, it remains to be seen whether the Congress will have any real stomach for a fight over a problem that may not even be here for another 10 to 20 years.
American politicians are no different than politicians anywhere else. They like issues that will help them in their next election. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions has a large near term cost (higher energy prices for constituents, higher costs of doing business for big donors) in return for what? A threat averted decades from now?
This has never has been an appealing combination for politicians in United States or anywhere else for that matter. The politicians in China and India can do the same political calculus that American politicians do. Why should they sacrifice economic growth that benefits their people today in favor of a better climate tomorrow for Europe or the United States?
So the odds heavily favor more backslapping and promises of tough action somewhere off in the future as the likeliest outcome of the Copenhagen meeting in December. Which would be okay if time was on our side, but it isn't, at least if you believe those who say that the window of opportunity for slowing down global warming is closing faster than meaningful agreements are being closed at global warming conferences.
