Discussions took place throughout last week in Bonn aimed at getting to grips with the rapidly worsening problem of global warming. Five years on from the relatively successful Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the situation has deteriorated greatly. The 150 countries represented in Bonn were endeavouring to agree on a global warming treaty to be signed at a world environment summit in Japan in December. But the virtual unanimity expressed in Rio that drastic steps are required - and quickly - has been blown apart by the decision of President Clinton to renege on the commitments given in Rio by the United States.
The Rio convention suggested that by 2000, emissions of greenhouse gases should be brought back to the levels that existed in 1990. Two years ago a conference in Berlin decreed that the Rio target was not ambitious enough and it duly mandated a working group to come up with a new treaty containing further commitments. The United Nations' 3,000-strong panel of scientists and climatologists has warned that emissions must be cut by 60 per cent to prevent "severe damage" to the earth's environment.
There has never been complete agreement among the major industrialised nations on how far the commitments should go. The European Union, largely influenced by Britain and Germany, has argued for cuts of 7.5 per cent by 2005 and 15 per cent by 2010 - too little too late perhaps but China supported the EU position. Japan is comparatively energy-efficient; it has suggested that the target should be a 5 per cent cut in emissions by 2012. Australia is anything but energy-efficient but it is the world's largest exporter of coal. It claims that it is a "special case". The United States, however, is responsible for 22 per cent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, so its decision was always going to carry the most weight.
Instead of his promise of four years ago, that by the year 2000 emissions would be brought back to 1990 levels, Mr Clinton now says there should be no reduction targets at all until 2008. Then, in the four years to 2012, emissions should be scaled back to the 1990 level. Mr Clinton has not bent before the powerful oil and automobile lobby in the United States, he has surrendered completely. In a face-saving defence, he argued that "it is a long-term problem that needs a long-term solution that needs to be phased in over time". It is indeed a long-term problem which needs a long-term solution but one which needs to be phased in now.
The economy of the United States is on an exceptional growth spurt and it seems nothing must be done that might harm it - no matter how worthy the cause. The booming economy increased its emissions of heat-trapping gases by 3.4 per cent last year. Mr Clinton faced stiff opposition in the US Senate to emission concessions but it was hoped that he would stand by his principles. It is difficult to argue with the World Wide Fund for Nature which said of Mr Clinton's climbdown that the United States will now be "holding the whole world to ransom".