President Bush’s rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change has disappointed many world leaders, and local experts fear it may have affect Ames.

Signed by the Clinton administration in 1999, the treaty never was ratified by the Senate. Aiming to reduce the impact of climatic changes, the treaty first decreases industrialized nations’ emissions of greenhouse gases, namely carbon dioxide and methane.

Although the United States is the world’s largest polluter, Bush is concerned that developing countries are not required to cut back, and he has said Third World emissions are catching up fast.

The Midwest will suffer the full force of a hotter world when it happens, said S. Elwynn Taylor, ISU Extension climatologist.

“It’s the people in the center of each continent that’s affected the most adversely by a warming climate,” said Taylor, professor of agronomy. “That means Iowa.”

Taylor said the current episode of global warming actually began in 1972, and since then, the erratic weather associated with it has decreased crop yield by 17 bushels of corn per acre per year. He said global warming is costing the economy of Iowa approximately $1 billion each year. Taylor said it would take some time before the full economic effects of global warming become apparent.

“Look at the problem like a compound interest on a bank account,” he said.

While Bush said there should be more studies on climate change, Taylor said funds for them remain capped.

“A lot is being said but not being done,” he said. “I’m concerned if the U.S. will establish a leadership for other countries to follow.”

Clark Miller, assistant professor of political science, said the American policy is to find the cheapest way possible to deal with the issue of global warming. He thinks the Bush administration clearly thought any regulation associated with the protocol would be costly at a time when the country is in an economic slowdown.

“[Bush] is hoping the economy will turn around and won’t go into a recession,” Miller said. “When the time comes for a midterm election, it will look like the administration has done a pretty good job.”

Miller said the plan could backfire if the economy doesn’t recover, or Bush could end up being stuck with the anti-environment label. American corporations are afraid strong environmental regulations will stifle their growth, he said. There will be new energy taxes, and anyone who uses energy will be paying higher energy costs.

Rachel Hein, senior in graphic design, said America is sending a message that it cares more about profits than human life or planetary stability. Hein, who took part in the Greenpeace U.S. Student Climate Summit in November, 2000, said corporations want Bush to stop the implementation of the treaty because it “forces them to take some responsibility for the damage they have done.”

“Being the largest contributor to this global problem, and the best poised to meet the challenge of fixing it, we should be taking the lead in the issue of climate change,” she said. “Our climate is changing . we need to change our ways if we hope to survive. We just don’t have the luxury of time with these issues.”

Hein said other countries eventually will reach a breaking point and decide to move forward without the United States. She said more people would be aware of the extent of the problem if not for the corporate media that fail to inform the public of the looming dangers of climate change.

Eric Abbott, professor of journalism and mass communication, said the media tend to cover things that rise to public attention. He said without an incident to trigger attention, people usually do not tend to be aware of certain issues.

“We just had a cold winter, and it’s hard to get people to talk about it,” he said.

Abbott said most people simply do not understand the issue. However, by the time a hot summer rolls by, people will start to pay more attention to it.

“This issue surrounding global warming is not dead,” he said. “I’m sure it will be back.”