First, the United States was not willing to take Obama's plan on cutting gas emissions. In 2009, Obama proposed a bill which would make USA's goal to cut emissions by 17% by the year 2020. However, the bill was cut off by the US Senate. The problem is Obama wants to do something about the climate, but is always cut off by Congress. Obama promises for his second term that he'll spend more time on the climate. It looks like the United States might have another Al Gore appear.
Another group that the U.N. told off were 100 developing nations, which of course include China and India. The U.N. pleaded with the nations to not create damage on a "previously unimaginable scale." China has recently overtaken the United States as the leader of greenhouse gases and there are other countries that are trying to expand as well. If everyone starts producing emissions as much as the U.S., Russia or China, the world will be no more than a baking oven.
I'm inclined to state that the world is going in a path of self-destruction. Nuclear warfare was the idea of self-destruction in the Cold War Era. However, the big issue is how do we stop ourselves from suffocating ourselves. Maybe carpooling and riding public transportation will be the way to go. Proposed ideas include limiting the amount a country can use by a certain date, working to limit per capita, or flat out "fair distribution." Whatever the solution might be, we need to come to one. Fast.
4 comments:
Domestically, we definitely need to get ourselves together. Global warming is too big of an issue to allow political gridlock to prevent the government from coming up with a solution. One interesting proposal is the institution of a carbon tax. Such a tax would be levied on the production, distribution, or consumption of fuels (with the amount of tax correlated with how much carbon the fuel produces when manufactured and used) and could be used to discourage the use of fuels such as coal that contribute heavily to global warming.
Yet the US can't handle global warming alone. So-called "developing countries" like China and India can't continue to pour greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. While the Kyoto Protocol may not have applied to them, these countries must find a way to reduce their carbon emissions in the near future if we're to combat global warming as a planet.
People think that global warming is too big of a problem to deal with personally so they put it off and hope that someone else fixes it. The reality is, every little thing that can be done needs to. It comes down to reusing bags, not throwing out a zip-block and paper bag at every lunch. If you think about the amount of trash you throw out every day and multiply that by the amount of people at our school, then all their families then all the schools in the bay area.... there is a massive amount of trash that could be reused or not even used in the first place.
We have come to a point where we are starting to really see the effects of what we have done. It is only going to get worse. I think that the government needs to start using it's influence to make a difference. We are at a very critical point... we can not go back to before but we can prevent the ramant destruction that is going on right now.
I think that this is a critical issue that the U.S. can and should really crack down on. If we as a country choose to really focus on conserving and reducing emissions, other nations will likely follow suit... there just needs to be a driving force to start it, which I think the U.S. should take the initiative to do.
I agree with Alexis--we are unnecessarily wasteful and it's pretty easy to stop! Use reusable containers, not paper lunch bags (not like I'm the perfect person to advocate for this since I often have paper bag lunches) but reading this post has made me realize that I am really selfish. I can easily use a reusable lunchbox without hassle.
On another note, I think that it is ridiculously immature that the Obama's attempt to pass laws to make our nation more "green" are being shot down in the senate. Just because many members of the senate do not agree with Obama on a common basis, this should be a bipartisan goal... to keep our nation and the world as a whole safe and healthy. Even if the laws are inconvenient to factories or bigger corporations, it shouldn't matter. We should all stand behind the general health and safety of our citizens.
There's no point in trying to govern if there's no planet to govern on. That's a slight fact that people tend to forget, but that's understandable. I'm sure that most Congressmen and Senators are more worried about this whole fiscal cliff deal than they are with the condition of the environment. But that doesn't detract from the importance.
I agree with the idea of recycling your own bags and whatnot on the personal level. But that isn't enough to combat global warming, so its understandable that people seem to find it futile. However, that's still no excuse for failing to be ecologically minded. The issue is the lack of any significant governmental action to combat global warming and other looming environmental crises. So say 40% of California successfully recycles; that's fantastic, except for the fact that recycling isn't as common of a practice throughout the rest of the country (probably the least humorous joke I've heard in a long time).
The US should probably sign the Kyoto Protocol. Not only are we one of the few industrialized nations not to, what if China beats us to it? (What American can justifiably say that its acceptable to ever lose to China?) Then we'd just look bad. We need to break our dependence on primitive fuel sources like coal and oil. The BBC reported that in some cases, using electric cars is actually damaging if the electricity comes from coal.
I think Preston blogged about this last week, but it should be said again. People need to stop being little girls when it comes to nuclear energy. The Simpsons may have ruined the image some (not to mention Chernobyl or Fukushima) but the benefits far outweigh the risks. It's cheaper and more space-efficient than any form of green energy except hydro-electric, which is extremely limited. Besides, this is America. Our safety standards are higher than the Soviet Unions, and we can't have simultaneous earthquakes and tsunamis in the Midwest.
Post a Comment