Criticism of President George W. Bush's environmental policy is brewing in the United States. In Barrow, Alaska, where residents might be compelled to evacuate because of a rise in sea level, a Republican lawmaker is objecting to the president's negative stance on fighting global warming.

A CBS poll in late May showed 62 percent of Americans think the president is bowing to pressure from the oil industry.

Despite the criticism, there is little chance Bush will retract his statement rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. As reported, an alternative plan proposed by the U.S. government could just encourage international negotiations to break down.

I think the assertion "the Kyoto Protocol is defective because it does not require developing countries to cut greenhouse gases" is itself either simple lack of knowledge or a mean smoke screen to hide U.S. reluctance to meet its obligations.

For the protocol to take effect, ratification by the European Union, Russia and Japan is a minimum requirement.

It is likely the EU and Russia, which will economically profit from the protocol once it takes effect, will go ahead and ratify it without U.S. participation.

The protocol's fate virtually depends on Japan's judgment and behavior.

However, in Japan, policymakers assert that without the United States, the protocol would be ineffective in fighting global warming. They say developing countries would also refuse to take part in the framework.

They are baseless and wrong. U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide only make up 23 percent of global emissions. The significance of other countries that jointly produce the remaining 77 percent acting in concert is immeasurable.

China is also implying its willingness to ratify the protocol regardless of the U.S. decision, according to The Asahi Shimbun dated June 22.

The argument that developing countries would refuse to make any new commitment to cut greenhouse gases without U.S. participation is nothing more than speculation and simplistic thinking.

Developing countries are by no means unanimous. Whether to accept requirements for reduction or not depends on the domestic and international situation and the specific requirements.

Developing countries are the most seriously affected by global warming. From actual experience, they know better than industrialized countries how measures to fight global warming are urgently needed.

Based on the progress of negotiations so far, it is also clear that it is indispensable for the protocol to take effect for countries to start talking about concrete next steps for developing countries to cut greenhouse gases.

If the protocol takes effect without the United States, Japanese companies are concerned their competitiveness will be undermined.

However, if we regard this problem as a trade issue, it can be dealt with by various measures that meet international rules. In addition, Japan can buy carbon credits made cheaper as a result of smaller demand caused by the U.S. withdrawal.

Objectively speaking, many of the Japanese government's positions are not necessarily positive from the standpoint of fighting global warming. Some international observers believe Japan is just as negative about ratifying the protocol as is the United States. The current mediation plan proposed by Jan Pronk, chairman of the conference of the parties, gives in especially to Japanese wishes.

If Japan maintains an ambiguous position over ratification of the protocol without U.S. participation, it is sure to confirm its already tainted image of a country that blindly follows the United States whether it is right or wrong.

It could even invite speculation that its attempt to persuade Washington to accept the protocol is merely an act and Japan is not serious about having the protocol take effect in 2002.

Japan's failure to act positively in this matter could convince the international community that its support for helping the global environment and developing nations is nothing but a sham.

In other words, unless the Japanese government takes the initiative to ensure the Kyoto Protocol takes effect as soon as possible, Japan could lose both the protocol and the trust of international society. The price is dear.

*

The author is an associate professor at the Center for Northeast Asia Studies in Tohoku University. He is currently a guest researcher for The Asahi Shimbun Asia Network (AAN).