TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/033092/0330330.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 6KB | 124 lines

                                                                                ENVIRONMENT, Page 45

Will Bush Go to Rio?


The environment is low on his priority list, but he can't afford
the fallout of being a no-show at the Earth Summit

By MICHAEL D. LEMONICK -- Reported by Andrea Dorfman/New York


    As moviegoers munch their popcorn before the main feature
starts these days, many of them see an earnest commercial in
which actor James Earl Jones urges President Bush to make a
vital trip to Brazil this June. People who want to deliver the
same message directly to the White House can call an 800 number
and for $6.95 send a personalized "Earth Telegram" to
Washington.

    These gimmicks are part of a determined campaign by
environmental groups to pressure the President into being part
of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, which is expected to be
the largest gathering of world leaders in history -- and could
be the most important. But with less than three months left
before the meeting, Bush has still not revealed his plans. Says
Senator Al Gore, a Tennessee Democrat: "History has given
President Bush a mandate to lead at this critical junction and
he has not fulfilled it. It's a disgrace."

    The goal of the United Nations-sponsored summit is
dauntingly ambitious: to chart a course that will halt the
steady degradation of the earth's air, land and water and
protect the multitudes of animals and plants threatened with
extinction. The organizers of the meeting, officially called the
U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, intend to
produce several landmark documents, including an Earth Charter
(a set of principles designed to ensure environmental protection
and responsible development), a program of action called Agenda
21 and treaties aimed at curbing climate change and limiting the
loss of biodiversity.

    The danger is that these agreements will be vague and
unenforceable, a cosmetic solution not backed by political will.
If so, much of the blame will rest with the U.S. In a series of
pre-summit meetings at which agreements are being negotiated,
American delegates have too often been naysayers, not leaders.
A report released this month summing up the Administration's
official attitude toward the issues has been widely criticized
as being long on statistics but short on solutions. The paper
gives little attention to the Rio summit's central theme: the
need for sustainable development in which economic growth no
longer results in the net destruction of natural resources. For
example, the Administration acknowledges the need for a global
policy to protect forests, but offers no specific proposals.

    Most disturbing has been the White House's resistance to
any targets or timetables for cutting down on production of
greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, which may lead to
global warming. The European Community wants to reduce CO2
emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, but America's refusal
to go along has effectively stymied the latest round of
climate-change negotiations. Environmentalists, and even the
conference organizers, argue that the U.S., as the world's
largest producer of greenhouse gases, has an enormous
responsibility to be cooperative on this issue. The Americans
say that adopting specific goals not only would be costly but
could also put U.S. industries at a competitive disadvantage in
the world marketplace.

    That is a questionable assumption. The changes advocated
in drafts of documents like Agenda 21 -- such as commitments to
mass transit and energy efficiency -- could ultimately improve
Americans' standard of living. A recent study coordinated by the
Union of Concerned Scientists contends that slashing CO2
emissions by 70% over the next 40 years would cost the U.S.
economy $2.7 trillion, but would trim fuel and utility bills by
$5 trillion. Reducing waste and pollution will take fundamental
changes in the American economy, but, says the U.N.'s Maurice
Strong, secretary-general of the Earth Summit, "the U.S. hasn't
yet realized the economic consequences of not making those
changes."

    The real competitive disadvantage could come from failing
to protect the environment. Already Japan is developing a
100-year plan to capitalize on environmental concerns by
designing "green" technologies, and European nations are moving
in the same direction. Says one observer at the pre-summit
meeting now being held at the U.N.: "Once again the U.S. is
going to be left behind in the dust of a Honda."

    In response, the Administration argues that it has done as
much as any government to fight global warming. Speaking at the
preparatory meeting this month, William Reilly, head of the
Environmental Protection Agency, cited the strengthening of the
Clean Air Act, Bush's promise to plant 1 billion trees a year
and the EPA's Green Lights program, which helps state
governments and corporations install energy-efficient lighting.
Moreover, the U.S. has pledged to contribute $75 million to
international funds designed to aid developing countries in
efforts to reduce production of greenhouse gases. Reilly is
convinced that the U.S. will sign on to a climate-change treaty
and all other agreements that come out of the Earth Summit.

    Unless negotiations collapse, say White House insiders,
Bush will almost surely decide to go to Rio. It will be
difficult for him to beg off, since the leaders of the other six
major industrial powers are expected to attend, Congress is
pressing him to make the trip, and the Democrats are poised to
blast his record on the environment. But if the President's
motives are just political, the journey south will be an empty
exercise. The summit cannot succeed unless the U.S. gets into
the spirit of Rio and does its part to create strong new
covenants to protect the planet.