cc: michael.grubb@ic.ac.uk, m.hession@ic.ac.uk, t.jackson@surrey.ac.uk, hadi@cmu.edu, sujatag@teri.res.in, a-michaelowa@hwwa.de, Emilio@ppe.ufrj.br, yamagata@nies.go.jp, Jorgen.Wettestad@fni.no, schellnhuber@pik-potsdam.de, gouvello@centre-cired.fr, EHaites@attcanada.ca, shs@leland.stanford.edu, jw18@soas.ac.uk, Jonathan.PERSHING@iea.org, RKinley@unfccc.int, Sylvie.Faucheux@c3ed.uvsq.fr, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, nkete@wri.org, Z.X.Zhang@Rechten.RUG.NL, pretel@chmi.cz, zkundze@man.poznan.pl, Noble@greenhouse.crc.org.au, jae@pnl.gov, ogunlade@energetic.uct.ac.za, Eberhard.Jochem@isi.fhg.de, hoesung@unitel.co.kr, naki@iiasa.ac.at, kchomitz@worldbank.org, enikitina@glas.apc.org, dlashof@nrdc.org, nishioka@iges.or.jp, pachuri@teri.res.in, "Mack McFarland" <Mack.McFarland@USA.dupont.com>, tom.downing@eci.ox.ac.uk, aidan.j.murphy@si.shell.com, CochranV@pewclimate.org, amin97@hotmail.com
date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:06:54 -0400
from: "Tom Jacob" <Tom.Jacob@USA.dupont.com>
subject: Re: [New] Editorial for Climate Policy, Issue 2.
to: Climate Policy <climatepolicy@ic.ac.uk>

MICHAEL:  I've reflected on the traffic offering differing perspectives on
how objective you should be in this.  My personal view is that editorials
offering informed judgement are very appropriate.  I would caution,
however, that some are engaged in "demonizing" the Bush action just as
others are engaged in "demonizing" the Protocol.  Neither of those extremes
are justified.  There are many working formally and informally on both
sides of the Atlantic to frame a path forward that can ensure a strong
foundation upon which to build, that can be embraced on both sides of the
Atlantic.  I have not given up on the possibility of that trans-Atlantic
bridge.  As I suggested in my thought-piece distributed in January,
however, such a foundation must be responsive both to the perceptions of
environmental risk that are being strengthened by the most recent IPCC
findings and the perceptions of economic risk that seem to be predominant
in motivating the US action.  To discount perceptions along either
dimension is to invite political failure.  To engage substantively on both
dimensions is necessary...





Climate Policy <climatepolicy@ic.ac.uk> on 04/18/2001 08:32:12

To:   michael.grubb@ic.ac.uk, m.hession@ic.ac.uk, t.jackson@surrey.ac.uk,
      hadi@cmu.edu, sujatag@teri.res.in, a-michaelowa@hwwa.de,
      Emilio@ppe.ufrj.br, yamagata@nies.go.jp, Jorgen.Wettestad@fni.no,
      schellnhuber@pik-potsdam.de, gouvello@centre-cired.fr,
      EHaites@attcanada.ca, shs@leland.stanford.edu, jw18@soas.ac.uk,
      Jonathan.PERSHING@iea.org, RKinley@unfccc.int,
      Sylvie.Faucheux@c3ed.uvsq.fr, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, nkete@wri.org,
      Z.X.Zhang@Rechten.RUG.NL, pretel@chmi.cz, zkundze@man.poznan.pl,
      Noble@greenhouse.crc.org.au, jae@pnl.gov,
      ogunlade@energetic.uct.ac.za, Eberhard.Jochem@isi.fhg.de,
      hoesung@unitel.co.kr, naki@iiasa.ac.at, kchomitz@worldbank.org,
      enikitina@glas.apc.org, dlashof@nrdc.org, Tom Jacob/AE/DuPont,
      nishioka@iges.or.jp, kchomitz@worldbank.org, pachuri@teri.res.in,
      Mack McFarland/AE/DuPont, tom.downing@eci.ox.ac.uk,
      aidan.j.murphy@si.shell.com, CochranV@pewclimate.org,
      amin97@hotmail.com
cc:
Subject:  [New] Editorial for Climate Policy, Issue 2.




Dear All,
There was a good response to my circulation of draft editorial for the
next issue of Climate Policy; I am grateful to all those that put time
in to read it and react. One thought the editorial was divisive, four
strongly supported it with minor amendments, two were sympathetic to the
substantive points but questioned its appropriateness as an overall
editorial.
After reflecting I have decided to follow the suggestion of one of the
latter, and submitted the material amended, as a viewpoint article
instead (rewritten with a coauthor). I am pleased to say that Henry
Jacoby from MIT has agreed to submit a Viewpoint responding to it.
In its place, I have drafted the attached Editorial. Again, I would
appreciate reactions.
With thanks
Michael
[New] Editorial for Climate Policy, Issue 2.
The hour has come, it seems, that we all hoped could be avoided. The
fragile bridge that spanned the Atlantic, in terms of a common basis for
developing responses to climate change, has been broken. President
Bush's statements of March 2001, rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, threaten
to leave a gaping hole in the broad tent under which the fractious,
squabbling world has been gathering to argue about the way forward.
Barely a month after government's accepted the findings of the IPCC's
Third Assessment Report - which confirmed both the seriousness of the
problem and the technical potential for solutions - uncertainty shakes
the very foundations upon which the next steps are to be built.
The Kyoto Protocol was always problematic in the US. In his viewpoint
article in this issue, Henry Jacoby sets out a considered US view of its
problems. Centrally, many in the US had problems with the requirement
for industrialised countries to take on quantified commitments without
concomitant obligations for developing countries; and the US commitment
under Kyoto was deemed too strong for the US realistically to implement.
In another viewpoint, I and a colleague set out a view that the Kyoto
Protocol has been badly misrepresented in the US debate and that working
within the Protocol remains by far the best way forward.
The greater danger at a time like this is that the gap in perceptions in
different parts of the world could become so wide as to threaten the
very possibility of intelligent dialogue or mutual respect for different
opinions. On the one hand, in order the justify its actions, the US
government may throw great effort into demonizing Kyoto and the thinking
which led to it. In turn, other governments and constituencies may be
tempted either to idolize it, and/or throw their energies into
castigating the US as the destroyer. A vicious war of words that turns
into a fundamental schism between the US overall, and the rest of the
world, will do little to advance real understanding or effective action
on climate change.
The important task for the Climate Policy journal is to provide a forum
for considered analysis of the issues and ways forward. I make no
secret of my own continuing support for the Kyoto Protocol as agreed in
Kyoto, and the process built upon it, notwithstanding the stance
apparently taken by President Bush. Contrary analyses, that contribute
to broader understanding and meet the usual standards of leading
academic journals, will be welcome - and indeed, crucial if this journal
is to make its contribution to narrowing the chasm of mutual
incomprehension that looms before us.
One of the core topics in dispute is the feasibility of the Kyoto
targets, and the credibility and seriousness of national plans for
implementing action on climate change. I am therefore pleased to say
that the next issue of Climate Policy will have a thematic focus upon
national implementation plans and prospects in the industrialized world,
guest-edited by Jonathan Pershing of the International Energy Agency.
We plan to follow this with a complementary issue looking at the
situation within developing countries, and the nature of their current
and possible future engagement in the global political process of
responding to climate change.
Michael Grubb
Editor-in-Chief
April 2001





