The representatives of 160 countries at the conference on climate change in The Hague face decisions which will have a radical effect on the lives of our children and grandchildren. Scientists have now convinced governments in most countries that the human contribution to climate change is indisputable; that global warming is taking place at a higher rate than previously anticipated and that immediate and far-reaching action should be taken to counter the process. There is no unanimity, however, on the type of measures needed, and a major deadlock looms between the environmentally-conscious group of countries that makes up the European Union on the one hand and the more economically minded representatives of the United States on the other.
An idea of the seriousness of the situation can be gleaned from the text of a draft paper drawn up by the United Nations Panel on Climate Change. The rate of global warming, the panel believes, will be twice that anticipated ten years ago. This could entail a series of ecological and human disasters ranging from vast floods in low-lying areas to serious drought in others. Agricultural production could face total destruction in some places, wildlife could face death as habitats eroded, severe weather incidents could increase in frequency and some tropical rain forests could face extinction.
Forests are, in fact, likely to become a key topic at The Hague. The United States finds itself in a bind of its own making. It promised to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to a level five per cent below that which obtained in 1990. But since 1990 the US has experienced an unprecedented economic boom which, as happens in economic booms, led to a huge increase in pollution. In order to meet its commitments, Washington would now, according to its chief negotiator, Mr Frank Loy, have to reduce emissions by more than one third. In order to do this US citizens would have to make changes to their lifestyles so dramatic that political protest could result. The answer, America believes, lies in forests.
Trees absorb carbon dioxide and the planting of forests, US scientists argue, along with the maintenance of existing forests would provide "sinks" to counterbalance harmful emissions. Europe, with very strong environmental lobbies in Scandinavia, Holland and Germany, thinks otherwise. The brakes, they argue, have failed and the car has begun to roll down a steep hill. It is too late to send in a man with a pick and shovel to level out the ground. Only substantial reductions in emissions will stave off disaster.
Ireland, it could be argued, is a small country whose greenhouse gas emissions are negligible in global terms. To adopt this attitude, however, would be to dodge important moral responsibilities. This country, like the United States and others, has been enjoying an economic expansion of unparalleled proportions. It appears to be a rule in these matters that the countries who do well add to the ecological problems of countries who do badly. We should be prepared to make some real sacrifices not only for the sake of those who live in parts of the world most likely to be devastated by floods but also for future generations at home.