Should U.S. Be Held to Higher Environmental Standards?
The US has in the past shown great moral strength, courage and sacrifice to respond to global crises but no so with the imminent threat of global climate change.
Yet, in order to accelerate global efforts to protect the environment, the US must not only be held to a higher environmental standard than the rest of the world, it must also show greater commitment to a coordinated worldly response.
The statistics speak for themselves - the US produces a total of 5,410 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, almost a quarter of the global emissions, according to researchers. This makes the US the world’s leading polluter, making it imperative to hold the country to a higher environmental standard.
- » See also: Winner of 2009 Rubber Dodo Award is Land Speculator Michael Winer
- » Get EcoWorldly by RSS or sign up by email.
The impact of US emissions go far beyond its borders, changing climatic patterns in many parts of the world, and disrupting people’s lives.
The apparent lack of US enthusiasm to make the world greener is in a word detrimental to the agenda of protecting the global environment.
Since the Kyoto treaty was established in 1997 to collaborate a global response to environmental destruction, in particular global warming, the US government has dilly-dallied and exhibited a consistent reluctance to ratify the agreement thereby dealing a body blow to the global campaign to protect the environment.
Incumbent US President George W. Bush has insisted that making global commitments to climate change would harm his country’s economic prospects. Since President Bush entered the White House, his administration has muzzled the country’s responsibility to significantly contribute to environmental solutions, including pulling the US out of the Kyoto climate change agreement.
“The United States performance indicates that the next administration must not ignore the ecosystem impacts of environmental as well as agricultural, energy and water management policies,” said Gus Speth, Dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at the launch of the 2008 Environmental Performance Index (EPI).
“The EPI’s climate change metrics ranking the United States alongside India and China near the bottom of the world’s table are a national disgrace.”
The fact of the matter is that, in order to produce a real global outcome on climate change, the US must step out of its shell of self-interest and show leadership as the world’s greatest power through ratifying and implementing international global climate agreements.
Though the US cites protecting its economy as the reason for its reluctance to make a global commitment, the long term impact of little action against climate change will undoubtedly unravel current, short-term concerns.
If the US can commit to higher environmental standards - mainly because it is the main polluter anyway, it will significantly make it easier for the world to engage other major polluters such as China and India in the global climate response.
China and India, like many developing nations accuse the US and other developed nations of having done damage to the environment for longer periods to time. Unlike the US however, many of the developing nations have approved international climate agreements, a critical first step in addressing the problem.
However, developing nations lack the werewithal to produce the requisite greneer techonlogies as well as the political and economic might to influence a global response.
On the contrary, the US has all this in abundance but seriously lacks the moral aptitude because of its stance on the global climate agreement.
With its financial and technological might, the US is well-positioned to build a low-emissions environment, and therefore set an example to the rest of the world.
It is a paradoxic sham that the US assumes a claim to higher moral standards in protecting democracy worldwide yet refuses due to self-interest to commit to global agreements against what scientists have described as the “greatest threat facing humanity” in our time.
The proposition that the US can go it alone is hurtful to global efforts because it makes other countries, chiefly China, to engage in finger pointing without addressing the problem.
As the world’s leading power, the US needs to show farsighted leadership in efforts to respond to threats posed by climate change.
“By committing to higher environmental standards, the US can make it a priority to develop and prove the effectiveness of alternative forms of energy, and use this as a basis to lobby and mobilize less-developed nations,” states US in the World, an initiative to get Americans involved in worldly matters.
“By acting first, the U.S. and other rich countries that are most responsible for global warming - because they burn the most oil, gas, and coal - can set a powerful example for others to follow. By committing themselves to developing alternative energy sources, technologically advanced countries like the United States can create new jobs and industries at home while jump-starting the international effort to slow global warming and influencing the energy choices of less advanced countries that are on the brink of making big new energy investments,” adds US in the World.
Given that the US is world’s super-power, it needs to lead by example, and rally the world toward a better management of the environment.
When did protecting the environment start to mean fighting global warming? Carbon dioxide is a minor problem that cannot even be called a pollutant without redefining the word. We have much bigger and more pressing matters on our hands.
America already has tougher environmental laws than the rest of the world, with Houston, TX being the most environmentally regulated city on the planet. The improvements have been dramatic, all of America’s cities are significantly cleaner than they were just two decades ago. We are leading the world in clean air and water standards. In fact, any definition of pollution that does not include carbon dioxide has America among the best.
However, internationally, fighting global warming has harmed helping the environment. The Amazon is being chopped down for more sugar plantations to make ethanol. Wood and “biomass” is being burned instead of natural gas, massively increasing particulates, NOx, and sulfur in the air. Windmills and dams are being errected with little thought as to their deadly effect on birds and fish. Toxic waste from solar panel manufacturing plants is being dumped in secret because it is too expensive to dispose of. People are starving pointlessly for a combination of fear of genetically modified crops and ethanol production (I apologize for the lack of references, but time and space are short).
It is not an uncommon sight, saving wildlife, reducing real pollution, and even protecting humanity all being sacrificed in order to cut carbon.
1) CO2 is plantfood, and is exhausted via respiration from every breathing animal on the planet. By swallowing the logic that CO2 is a pollutant, you must consider your very existence to be detrimental to the planet.
2) The optimal global temperature has not been defined. The global climate is always in flux, and it is impractical to assume that every change is detrimental.
3) Equal, if not better, correlations can be made between solar activity and global temperatures. It is not a matter of scientific concensus. Just ask any one of these 31,000+ scientists (http://oism.org/pproject/).
4) No mention is made of the efficiency of the USA. Look at per capita produciton versus energy consumption. By this measure, the USA provides the world with four times as much per unit of energy.
5) The current administration has welcomed treaties that would hold all nations to high environmental standards. Treaties that are biased against the USA will harm the environment, because production will shift to less efficient nations.
I am one of the Americans promoting the practical applications of newer and more efficient technologies. My company makes components for high-efficiency inverters for alternative energy and motor drives. I have long been an advocate for high efficacy LED lighting, which has far more potential than mercury-containing CFL lighting.
Quit putting your hope in world treaties and regulations that restrict people. Real hope is in ingenuity of free people.
Global warming is a reality. To say otherwise is morally reprehensible and quite frankly embarrassing.
The consensus has been established. Anthropogenic warming is a reality, and we have to deal with it. While a small minority of scientists funded by ExxonMobil have created the illusion of controversy, almost every single PEER-REVIEWED climate scientist concurs with the idea of anthropogenic warming.
Climate history, ice core data, satellite data, balloon data, and the reality that there is no serious alternative explanation for the rise in temperature illustrates the unquestionable truth.
That is why Naomi Oreskes could survey 934 peer-reviewed studies and note that not a SINGLE one of them disputed the idea of human-induced climate change.
Policymakers have given up on the bullshit. You should too.
Masimba Biriwasha, your work on needle exchange programs and the HIV/AIDS crisis has inspired me. This global warming article is quite well written as well. Thank you.