Outside editorial: It's irresponsible for the U.S. to dodge the fight on global warming
Knowing the war's outcome lay in doubt, fearing his countrymen might make too much of an early victory, Winston Churchill offered his cautionary take on the battle of El Alamein: This "is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
Sound off on the important issues at
Anyone giddy about the outcome of the U.N.-led climate talks in Bali last week would do well to adopt a similar sensibility.
Yes, 190 countries met to discuss the alarming rise in greenhouse gases. And, despite their differences, they stitched together an agreement that many are calling a victory in the fight against global warming.
But they didn't agree to a timetable for reducing carbon emissions that cause global warming. And they didn't agree to targets for reducing carbon emissions.
What they agreed to do was talk some more, and try to make "deep cuts" in global emissions.
Perhaps that marks the end of the beginning of an effort to draft a successor to the Kyoto protocol, which 37 nations signed obligating them to modest greenhouse-gas emissions cuts by 2012. But, thanks to obstructionist countries including the United States, China, Canada, Japan and India, the real fighting - and any real hope for victory in the war against global warming - lies far ahead.
Conferees didn't agree to do more, like bringing emissions down 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and by 50 percent by 2050, as the European Union suggested, because the United States wouldn't allow it. It led Japan and Canada in refusing a draft document requiring developed nations to meet important benchmarks.
Instead, the Bush administration stubbornly continues to advocate voluntary actions to stem global warming - an approach sure to turn down the planet's thermostat as much as an ice chip would a sauna's.
And the United States, the world's leading emitter of carbon, insists it and other industrialized nations shouldn't have to curb their reliance on fossil fuels unless certain developing states face similarly harsh restrictions. Why, after all, should China and India, whose economies continue to mushroom, escape similar mandates?
Point taken - but to a point. Those countries can't be expected to assume their responsibilities unless the United States, which has polluted the air to a far greater degree and for a lot longer than either country, shows responsibility and leadership. It's got to commit to renewable energy, conservation and mandatory emissions cuts.
It's immature posturing, saying the United States won't stick out its neck unless the other guy does. That won't fly. It wouldn't think of saying it'll hold off on championing human rights until China embraces them. The United States shouldn't wait on China, or any other country, before taking the lead on another moral imperative - ending global warming.