Will Bush Go to Rio?

• Share

As moviegoers munch their popcorn before the main feature starts these days, many of them see an earnest commercial in which actor James Earl Jones urges President Bush to make a vital trip to Brazil this June. People who want to deliver the same message directly to the White House can call an 800 number and for $6.95 send a personalized "Earth Telegram" to Washington.

These gimmicks are part of a determined campaign by environmental groups to pressure the President into being part of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, which is expected to be the largest gathering of world leaders in history -- and could be the most important. But with less than three months left before the meeting, Bush has still not revealed his plans. Says Senator Al Gore, a Tennessee Democrat: "History has given President Bush a mandate to lead at this critical junction and he has not fulfilled it. It's a disgrace."

The goal of the United Nations-sponsored summit is dauntingly ambitious: to chart a course that will halt the steady degradation of the earth's air, land and water and protect the multitudes of animals and plants threatened with extinction. The organizers of the meeting, officially called the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, intend to produce several landmark documents, including an Earth Charter (a set of principles designed to ensure environmental protection and responsible development), a program of action called Agenda 21 and treaties aimed at curbing climate change and limiting the loss of biodiversity.

The danger is that these agreements will be vague and unenforceable, a cosmetic solution not backed by political will. If so, much of the blame will rest with the U.S. In a series of pre-summit meetings at which agreements are being negotiated, American delegates have too often been naysayers, not leaders. A report released this month summing up the Administration's official attitude toward the issues has been widely criticized as being long on statistics but short on solutions. The paper gives little attention to the Rio summit's central theme: the need for sustainable development in which economic growth no longer results in the net destruction of natural resources. For example, the Administration acknowledges the need for a global policy to protect forests, but offers no specific proposals.

Most disturbing has been the White House's resistance to any targets or timetables for cutting down on production of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, which may lead to global warming. The European Community wants to reduce CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, but America's refusal to go along has effectively stymied the latest round of climate-change negotiations. Environmentalists, and even the conference organizers, argue that the U.S., as the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases, has an enormous responsibility to be cooperative on this issue. The Americans say that adopting specific goals not only would be costly but could also put U.S. industries at a competitive disadvantage in the world marketplace.