Earth summit needs more than hot air

Guardian News Service, London

Prague appears to be drowning, its Hapsburg palaces engulfed by the river that runs through the historic center on which they are built. In Austria the Danube, more brown than blue, has punched through dams and 1,000 buildings are under water in Salzburg. About 50 people have died in Russia -- victims of flash floods along the Black sea coast.

Meanwhile over Asia hangs a two-mile thick haze of pollution which, according to the United Nations, is blocking out sunlight and could reduce the rice harvest -- a crucial staple for the continent's three billion people. These are not local difficulties, but connected by how the weather appears to be changing.

From Bangladesh to Alaska to Malawi, altered climate conditions have caused droughts, floods, landslides and melting polar caps. Rising temperatures are triggering unprecedented levels of tropical diseases. Development, in its current form, appears to be degrading the environment.

Belching carbon dioxide, a gas produced when fossil fuels are burnt, into the atmosphere means the earth is heating up. The 1990s were the hottest decade of the entire millennium. The last five years were among the seven hottest on record. Some argue that this is not all bad as East Anglia might bathe (though not this year) in Tuscan sunshine all year round. But this small gain could see London submerged by the Thames.

In Rio a decade ago the world solemnly resolved that all this would never happen. The 1992 UN summit saw two conventions signed -- on climate change and biodiversity -- and a program called Agenda 21 agreed, that would ensure that growth and greenery could flourish.

On most counts, Rio has not delivered. Tropical forests and coral reefs are both quietly disappearing. Emissions of carbon dioxide are up by 10 percent worldwide, despite the Kyoto agreement which promised a cut of five percent by 2012. George Bush's administration shares much of the blame for the lackluster performance. It has preferred to question the science and refused to sign up to Kyoto, while Europe and Japan did. Even its own experts have disowned the Bush White House.

The U.S., the world's biggest polluter, emits nearly a fifth more carbon dioxide than a decade ago. American intransigence has lowered expectations of the UN Earth Summit in Johannesburg this month. Its high-minded goal is to promote economic progress in the developing world without depriving future generations of resources.

Poor countries cannot industrialize, urbanize and then consume power at the rate rich countries do at present. It would be unsustainable for China's one billion people to guzzle gas at the rate Americans do. Different models of development are needed. The future needs to be a low-carbon one. Adopting the EU's target for 10 percent of energy production from renewable sources, such as solar or wind power, for the globe in 2010 would be a good start. To kick start this, nations like Britain -- which hand over billions of pounds every year for fossil and nuclear fuel projects in developing countries -- could redirect the money to renewable schemes.

To some extent governments should be shamed by the growing number of companies voluntarily committing themselves to greenhouse gas reduction targets -- oil giant BP has already cut emissions 10 percent below 1990 levels. There are contradictions that need to be addressed -- like why the costs of meeting Kyoto, about US$56 billion, could not be found by simply cutting fossil fuel subsidies worth $57 billion. For the 65,000 delegates heading for Johannesburg, there is much to talk about and much more to do.