By Kari Lydersen

Like most other crises that are occurring on a timetable of decades rather than days, global warming has taken a distant backseat in media coverage and the public consciousness since the war on terrorism began. But the threat of terrorist attacks has not changed the slow but sure rise in the planet’s temperatures, which in the long run could likely result in much more mayhem and loss of life than the World Trade Center attacks.

The war on terrorism has provided President Bush a nice respite from foreign and domestic scorn over his refusal to sign the Kyoto accords to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Five years after the 1997 Kyoto summit, Bush has finalized his refusal to sign on to the accords, as 178 other countries did. Instead, he unveiled his own alternative plan for voluntary reduction of emissions, at industry’s own discretion, along with tax breaks for moving toward renewable resource systems.

The media aired significant outcry from environmentalists and foreign diplomats about Bush’s plan, as well as the minority voices that claim that there is really no such thing as the greenhouse effect.

“The fact that the earth is warming is not really disputed by anyone in the field,” said Gary Gardner, research director of the World Watch Institute. “The question people ask is, is this the result of human activity? The scientific basis for that just grows stronger and stronger all the time. I think there is increasing acceptance in the media that climate change is real and that human activity has a strong role in it.”

While global warming and the Kyoto accords have not figured prominently in the American mainstream media, scientific journals and European media have continued to paint a dire picture of the situation. Already icebergs are breaking loose, an Antarctic shelf has collapsed into the sea, Peru has lost a quarter of its glaciers, and scientists are theorizing that orioles and other birds and animals will become endangered because of weather trends.

According to the BBC, tree rings are getting larger, as the trees grow quicker in warmer weather; stalactites in caves are growing faster as more water seeps through the ground surface; permafrost is melting; and the growing season for crops in many countries is getting significantly longer.

Ten of the warmest years of the 20th century were within the last 15 years, with 1998 being the warmest year on the books. Over the last century, the sea level has risen four to eight inches and the average Earth surface temperature has risen by one degree Fahrenheit. Two separate British and Swiss studies released in April said global warming was advancing even faster than predicted.

“Burning fossil fuels and using the atmosphere as an open sewer has turned out to be a recipe for disaster,” the New Scientist states. “The Earth is warming and the pace is quickening. Where will it end?”

Though the US has only about 4% of the world’s population, it produces a quarter of the world’s greenhouse emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency notes that natural decomposition of plants and other organic materials actually counts for 10 times more greenhouse gases than the activities of humans, but while these emissions have remained almost constant over the centuries, human-caused emissions continue to increase sharply.

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased almost 30% since the start of the industrial revolution, while methane concentration has doubled and nitrous oxide concentrations increased by about 15%. Fossil fuels burned to power cars, heat buildings and run factories are responsible for 98% of the polluting carbon dioxide emissions in the US, while agriculture, deforestation, mining and landfills also add to the problem. Mass deforestation around the world has also exacerbated the problem, since there are fewer plants to turn carbon dioxide into oxygen.

Bush’s voluntary reduction plan, unveiled in February, revolves around reducing the rate of emission per unit of production, but still increasing production, for an overall net increase in emissions.

“We’ll be working with our allies to reduce greenhouse gases,” Bush told CNN last year. “But I will not accept a plan that will harm our economy and hurt American workers.” The White House claims that Kyoto compliance would cost the country $400 billion and the loss of 4.9 million jobs.

Bush also said that increasing economic output and bolstering the economy through increased production (and thereby increased emissions) will in the long run cut down on emissions since more profit will be available to invest in cleaner systems.

This questionable justification was met with scorn by British and other media. They pointed out that while Britain is planning to cut down its emissions by a fifth in the next decade and half by 2050, Bush will have the US producing an estimated 35% more than Kyoto would have allowed by 2010. Had the US signed on to Kyoto, it would have meant a commitment to an 8% reduction from 1990 greenhouse gas levels. On Feb. 6 the European Union voted 540-4 to ratify Kyoto, promising its own 8% cut by 2010.

Bush based his refusal of the Kyoto treaty partly on the fact that developing countries were not held to the same standards as powers like the US, Britain and Australia. However, at the Kyoto conference it was argued that it would be unrealistic to impose the same percentage cuts on developing countries, which account for a relatively small slice of the world’s emissions and lack the resources for emissions control. Bush was backed by the Senate, which voted 95-0 to demand developing nations be included in the treaty.

“We’re not privy to the inner workings of the government, but surely the oil companies’ interests are represented at the highest levels of government,” noted Gardner. “I can’t imagine those interests have not had an impact on our stance on Kyoto.”

The BBC reports that at the rate warming is going, the seas could rise by up to a meter in 30-40 years, meaning whole nations could disappear and millions of people would be displaced by flooding in low-lying areas such as the Ganges and Mekong deltas in Asia. While the fertility and productivity of land would increase in some areas because of global warming, overall the most productive areas on coasts would be lost and generally agriculture would suffer. In addition, tropical diseases like malaria would become more widespread as the climate becomes warmer and wetter.

Scientists notes the shifts in which species of anemone and other marine animals are dominating tide pools in Northern California, due to changes in temperature. Although the power struggles of anemones might seem insignificant in this age of war and terrorism, scientist Rafe Sagarin said, “These animals, and plants, are all sort of indicators that indeed the climate is changing and it’s having effects on living things. We’re still a natural species. We depend on living things for everything, so those effects are going to carry up all the way to the human realm.”