While President Obama attends U.N. summit of on climate change in Copenhagen, it is becoming more and more apparent that the divided interests of Americans- between keeping their job or finding one, determining whom to trust with their money, and whether or not they can or should get a swine flu vaccination- are steering them away from concern for the long-term effects of greenhouse gases and global warming. Not only that, but certain global warming-deniers are creating a circus atmosphere in Washington, DC in what is being called "climategate."
After illegally obtaining emails and documents from a British research institute (UEACRU), deniers are not only ignoring the fact that they've broken the law, but are targeting climate scientists around the world who support global warming initiatives. As if this weren't enough of a faux scandal, they're even demanding thatAl Gore lose his Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth.
The reason the email leak has received so much attention is because the language of the emails, privately sent between scientists, suggests the fabrication of statistics--though it is being argued that the tone is being misconstrued and misinterpreted by individuals looking for an anti-environmental smear campaign platform.
However, the agency was responsible for the data that was included in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment that has served as the basis for most of the regulatory legislative proposals since its publication. Obviously, if there was legitimate concern that this body invented statistics, it would be a big problem. But this isn't the case. "Climategate" is just another red herring to distract and detract the global community from the real dangers of reckless pollution and greenhouse gases.
And it appears to be working, in conjunction with the overwhelming concern most Americans have for the economy. In an interview on NPR, Ed Maibach, Director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, had this to say:
I think there's two big things going on. Number one is the economy. It's been in shambles for quite some time now and psychologists tell us that there's such a thing as a limited pool of worry, finite pool of worry -we can only worry about so many things at any one time. And most people that I know are fairly worried about the economy, so it tends to have the effect of forcing their concern about other issues further from top of mind.
The second thing that's absolutely going on right now is this is a highly contested issue. There's a battle raging in Congress right now about passing climate legislation, and lots of people, lots of organizations are vying for the hearts and minds of the public to influence them in one direction or the other.
Out of Copenhagen, though, several options may emerge, similar to and different from the Kyoto summit in 1997. The world's most highly developed countries, United States included, didn't have to do much more than tacitly agree to pay attention to global warming after the Kyoto summit; the US Senate never even ratified the pact.
But President Obama is taking a more proactive approach using what is now being referred to as a "Pledge and Review" method. Obama may promise to lower greenhouse gas emissions by 17% (according to 2005 levels) by 2020, and other countries would make similar promises with individual timetables and goals. However, developing countries are resisting pressure to make their goals legally binding, and the US will not agree to a treaty that is not binding internationally.
It remains to be seen what will emerge from Copenhagen, but here's to hoping that "going green" isn't a passing fad, and that the global community will reassert responsibility for the long-term consequences of pollution and curb global warming.
8 comments:
Funny you wrote about this, just the other day I was wondering whether or not there was going to be a "green bubble." What do you think?
I don't know if it's a bubble, per se, but it's definitely being eclipsed by the economic concerns of Americans at least. And I understand why. It's just a shame that politics have become so partisan that there seems to be an equivalent to Monica Lewinsky in environmental issues at this point. I think the real problem is that the US doesn't have a united front in supporting climate change legislation, due to things like climategate.
hmm I don't know if I agree, even if we dont formally adopt policies concerning climate change, there is no doubt that the amount of government investment into green products is going to skyrocket under the Obama Administration, and everyone seems to be in agreement that there is absolutely no reason NOT to invest in cleaner energy, if not because of its cleanliness simply for security reasons that our dependence on foreign oil complicates, and because of the fact that in time with more innocavation, clean technologies will be more cost effective than traditional methods of energy creation.
That's true, but I think that we'll end up following the lead of nations like Britain in terms of formal pledges and pacts.
I wonder what percentage of global climate can be explained by human actions. To me that is the big question. Is it 5%? 10%? The Green movement has noble roots but the need is nothing like it used to be. In the 1970s RIVERS CAUGHT FIRE in the United States. The river in Clevland was on FIRE. A RIVER. Thats bad pollution. We dont have those problems anymore in the US and we cant tell China what to do.
And if the Economy is so important how come we havent passed meaningful regulatory reform?
I think the reason we haven't passed meaningful regulatory reform is because we're so busy trying to pass meaningful health care reform, after that we can have regulatory reform and then after that maybe meaningful immigration reform....oh wait no we'll be too close to an election at that point
If they keep ranting about regulating CO2 as a pollutant, why don't I hear more proposals to plant more damned trees, and I mean a great multitude of trees, as that makes just about as much sense as regulating something we exhale. Plant more damn trees, hell, use the stimulus or left-over TARP money to hire the unemployed (not state agencies or unions) to plant the damn trees, and maybe that'll quiet the eco-warriors for a bit, and there's some job creation. The United States has been cleaning up its environmental policies (as an environmental corporate defense attorney once said to me "Most of the big fights in our field have already been fought...and lost.") for decades, what possible good could come from us hamstringing our own economy when developing economic powerhouses such as China and India get a free pass, and probably the politically incorrect jobs that get shipped over there as a result? As long as there are major states and powers willing to allow their population to work hip deep in benzene, the most practical effects of these international accords is a great deal of back-slapping and self-righteousness.
I'm pretty sure at this point there isn't enough room on the planet to stop global warming. But here's a great article that came out yesterday about the Copenhagen summit and the circumstances between the Senate and Obama on climate change legislation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/weekinreview/13broder.html?_r=1&hp
Post a Comment