How many environmental treaties can one administration sabotage?

"...This tough-talking, warmongering administration is actually the
wussiest White House in history. There is not a single moneyed
interest, no matter how comparably shallow its pockets or craven its
intentions, for which the Bush administration will not roll over and
play ethically dead..."

This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Grist Magazine:
http://www.gristmagazine.com/thegist/gist112003.asp

The Loophole in the Ozone Layer

How many international environmental treaties can one administration
sabotage? 20 Nov 2003

>From just about anywhere you are on the planet, the city of Punta
Arenas, Chile, is very, very far away. Perched on the banks of the
Strait of Magellan, Punta Arenas is bounded on the north by the ice
fields of Patagonia, a place that the combined forces of nature and
the outdoor-gear industry have made synonymous with all things rugged
and remote. To the south, on the other side of the strait, the Western
Hemisphere peters off into the fractured islands of Tierra del Fuego;
beyond that lies the Antarctic. And then there is another, newer
landmark: For a few months every year, during the Southern Hemisphere
spring, Punta Arenas sits directly beneath the hole in the ozone
layer.

I lived in Chile a few years ago and spent some time in Punta Arenas,
a town of about 120,000, not counting sheep or tourists. This was in
2000, when the ozone hole was at its largest ever -- 11.5 million
square miles, bigger than Canada and Russia combined. The ultraviolet
light leaking through that hole posed significant health threats to
residents of Punta Arenas: increased risk of severe sunburns, skin
cancer, weakened immune systems, and cataracts and other vision
problems, to name a few.

Despite the magnitude of the problem and the attendant health
concerns, the people of Punta Arenas had reason for cautious optimism
back in 2000. If they had the misfortune to be among those most
directly afflicted by the depletion of the ozone layer, at least the
global community was making a good-faith effort to resolve their
predicament, thanks to the Montreal Protocol, often considered the
most successful international environmental treaty ever negotiated.

Well, sic transit gloria mundi. Last week, at a meeting at the
headquarters of the United Nations Environment Program in Nairobi,
Kenya, the United States demanded an exemption from a Montreal
Protocol requirement to phase out the use of methyl bromide by 2005.
Methyl bromide is a deeply toxic pesticide that destroys ozone at 45
times the rate of chlorine, the better-known bad guy in the ozone-hole
drama. (Chlorine is the insidious ingredient in chlorofluorocarbons,
or CFCs.) According to the protocol, which took effect in 1987 and
boasts more than 160 signatories, developed nations must cut their
methyl bromide use 70 percent compared to 1991 levels by this year and
phase it out entirely by 2005. Under previous administrations, the
U.S. complied with the first part of that requirement -- but in
Nairobi, instead of going the last mile, the Bush administration
demanded permission to increase U.S. use of methyl bromide to 38.2
percent of 1991 levels in 2005 and 37 percent in 2006.

The good news is that the European Union and the developing world
wouldn't stand for it. The bad news is that I can't find an iota of
evidence that the Bush administration gives a damn what the rest of
the world stands for. Witness the Nairobi meeting: Slated as a routine
check-in to assess and adjust the treaty's efficacy in repairing the
ozone layer, it was commandeered by the U.S. and turned into a forum
for undoing more than 15 years of steady progress toward that goal.
Flummoxed by the American delegation's insistence on violating the
terms of the treaty (and, incidentally, of the federal Clean Air Act),
the negotiators agreed to revisit the issue in an "extraordinary
meeting" to be held in Montreal in March -- the first time in the
history of the protocol such a meeting has been necessary.

Extraordinary indeed. What is the Bush administration thinking? Well,
this administration has a one-track mind, so that question is answered
easily enough: It's thinking about its campaign donors. Methyl bromide
is the fumigant of choice for growing, storing, and shipping many
agricultural products, notably strawberries, tomatoes, ginger, sweet
potatoes, and turf grass (the stuff used on golf courses). It's also
the favored substance for fumigating agricultural imports to destroy
any invasive species that might have come along for the ride. (Because
of that use, the White House has billed its support of methyl bromide
as good for the environment, but enviros aren't buying it.) Both
methyl bromide manufacturers and agribusiness have donated generously
to the Bush campaign, as journalist Glenn Scherer documented in an
August Salon article. Thus the backtracking on the Montreal Protocol
shares the same politico-pecuniary motivation as every other
environmental rollback on this administration's record, notably its
withdrawal from the Kyoto treaty on climate change.

But in meddling with the Montreal Protocol, the Bush administration
may have overreached. It's one thing to stonewall about addressing a
complicated issue (climate change) involving the single most important
commodity of modern life (energy). It's another thing to deliberately
undo years of demonstrable progress on a well-known issue in order to
curry favor with an industry that has had years to come up with safer
alternatives. If the other countries of the world stand strong in
March, environmentalists should be looking at a win-win situation.
Either the Bush administration will have to suck it up, abide by the
methyl bromide restrictions, and acknowledge that it overstepped this
time -- or it will have to walk away from the treaty entirely, thereby
presenting the environmental movement (and the entire progressive
community) with a prime opportunity for pillorying.

Think about it: Not so long ago, the ozone hole was, like pandas and
rainforests, a cause celebre. Its popularity as an issue reached well
beyond the earnest environmental crowd; junior high kids learned about
it in science classes and people who once hadn't known a CFC from a
CFO fretted about it with their friends. If the U.S. walks away from
the negotiating table in March, a little concerted effort could put
the issue front and center again -- at a most awkward moment for a
would-be two-term president.

So here's a little messaging, conveniently prepackaged for progressive
spin doctors (hello, anybody out there?): This tough-talking,
warmongering administration is actually the wussiest White House in
history. There is not a single moneyed interest, no matter how
comparably shallow its pockets or craven its intentions, for which the
Bush administration will not roll over and play ethically dead. Any
day now, we can expect the president to renege on the CFC commitments
of the Montreal Protocol, too -- anything for his friends in the
hairspray industry, you see.

Three years ago, the mayor of Punta Arenas, Juan Enrique Morano
Cornejo, succinctly summarized the effects on the hoi polloi of this
kind of politicking. "Around here," he told me, "we call it the Ley
del Gallinero" -- the law of the chicken coop. The law of the chicken
coop turns out to be a lot like the law of gravity: Things fall
downward, and for the chickens at the bottom of the coop, life is,
well, kind of shitty.

The hole in the ozone layer was the problem that taught us about
planetary interdependence -- about the uncanny proximity of places
like Punta Arenas to the rest of the world, no matter how far away
they may seem on a map -- long before climate change or globalization
became household terms. The progress that we've made toward repairing
that hole demonstrates the amazing power of international
collaboration and commitment. If the Bush administration succeeds in
backing out of that commitment, it will represent an act of moral
disemboweling: spineless, gutless, visionless, heartless. And, of
course, brainless: Chickens, it should be remembered, have a way of
coming home to roost.

-- Kathryn Schulz, managing editor 

= = = =
STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA
IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON?
= = = =

Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org

= = = =

Sorry we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email

For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace)
And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general)

ANTI-SPAM EMAIL NOTE: For email "info" and "map" don't work. Email
instead
to m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes) at economicdemocracy.org