Last year, Pentagon defense adviser Andrew Marshall issued aharsh warning of the consequences of climate change: mass chaos,national security crises and food shortages. If climate changeoccurs abruptly, the report declared, there could be acatastrophic breakdown in international security. Wars overaccess to food, water, and energy would likely break out betweenstates. Even if is more gradual, recent studieshave argued that as many as one million plant and animal speciescould be rendered extinct by 2050 due to the effects of globalwarming. is the most serious challenge facingthe international community. In order to plan for a sustainablefuture - one that meets needs today without compromising meetingthe needs of future generations - global warming must beaddressed. We have arrived at a stage in human evolution thatrequires international cooperation - a stage which demands thatworld leaders put world priorities ahead of national politicalagendas in order to halt the peril threatening humanity. In1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)asked all nations to renew their commitment to implementpolicies based on the three pillars of sustainable development -economic, environmental and social - in order to arrestenvironmental deterioration and revive world economic growth. Inparticular, the report stated, poverty has played a major rolein environmental degradation. Not only is it our moralobligation to eliminate poverty, the report revealed it isessential to protecting and improving the environment. Furtherreports have concluded that environmentally unsound technologyhas been exponentially far more detrimental to sustainabledevelopment than even population growth. In order to achievesustainable development, the Commission reported, our citiesmust be considered in the global concerted effort. Sincethree-fourths of the global warming pollution could be solved ifwe decreased burning fossil fuels, one of the most effectiveways to transform urban growth is by switching to alternativeenergy sources. Fortunately, there are many means of harnessingenergy which have less damaging impacts on our environment thanfossil fuels, and we already have developed all thetechnological resources needed. Now we must admit there is aproblem and start working in the direction to make thistransition. If our current leaders do not want to face thispressing challenge with integrity, then as Leonardo Dicapriourges, we need to vote for leaders who care about theenvironment and our health and the future generations who willbear the burden long after the Administration is gone.
A Call to Action
On October 25, 2005, Senator Hillary Clinton (NY) called for anational energy strategy enlisting the oil industry in a processthat would help consumers while making the transition toalternative energy technologies. Her plan redirects the hidden"tax" that Americans are already paying to OPEC and the oilcompanies, but lasts only long enough to" kick-start thealternative energy market that we all know is out there," sheexplained. Speaking to Cleantech Venture Network, a group ofventure capitalists who recently were named by Wall StreetJournal reports for their success in developing clean energy asa viable investment category, Clinton emphasized the immediateconcern which is how to help citizens pay their bills and keepthe economy moving in the face of dramatically higher energycosts. There is no question, she said, that our failure to makebetter energy choices is sapping our pocketbooks, limiting ourcompetitiveness, threatening our environment and even ournational security. "Hurricanes Katrina and Rita made thatbrutally clear." The far reaching problem we face, SenatorClinton stated, is coping with the impacts of massive economicdevelopment and competition for oil in other parts of the worldsuch as India and China in the next twenty years. "Looseningenvironmental standards or opening up a new oil field or two isnot going to offset this seismic shift in energy demand," sheexplained. Her plan unburdens the American people of foreign oildependence, investing a portion of the profits into the U.S.energy future, instead of regimes we would never choose tosubsidize. The oil industries can choose to either reinvesttheir profits into America's energy future or contribute to anew Strategic Energy Fund, she said. The Strategic Energy Fundwould help consumers cope with spiraling energy costs, promoteadoption of existing clean energy and conservation technologies,while stimulating research and investment by the private sector.She also recommends assessing an alternative energy developmentfee for those companies deciding not to directly reinvest in ourenergy future. That fee, she explained would help fund energytransition. "The Fund could generate as much as $20 billion ayear to help with home heating oil costs and develop new energystrategies." In this way, she explained, we would reduce ourreliance on fossil fuel, make existing alternative technologiesmore affordable, jump start our technology, and regain U.S.world leadership. It's got "Made in America" written on it, inaddition to providing a role model for developing nations. The"energy revolution" can be as big and important as theindustrial revolution and the explosion of the information age.However, we have to do what America has always done when facedwith a big challenge, she said, "roll up our sleeves anddedicate this country to finding a solution." In effect, sheexplained, "the country that put a man on the moon can be thecountry to find new lower cost and cleaner forms of energy. Ournation needs it. Our planet needs it."
Addressing in the Environment of a Hostile U.S.Administration One of the most important outcomes of the 2002World Sustainable Summit Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg,South Africa, was the decision to address at theglobal level, starting at the local level-- all mandates thatmust be enacted locally as well as globally in order to begin toimpact the effects of climate change. A decade earlier, the Riode Janeiro Summit articulated the need to include humanity aswell as environmental protection in the sustainability equation.Hence, it concluded, the critical problem of poverty must alsobe addressed. When the United Nations authorized the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development in 2002, it had alreadyrealized poverty had deepened and environmental degradation hadworsened since the 1992 Summit. The world needed a new summit ofactions with results, and not just intent. Managing urbanenvironmental conditions ultimately belongs with nationalgovernments, businesses, scientific bodies, and communitiesworking together; but history shows us U.S. involvement hasalways sped and strengthened global progress in improving urbanenvironmental conditions for sustainable development. AlthoughU.S. partnership is needed to meet the increasingly urgentdemands to make cities livable, the Bush Administration has notbeen forthcoming. While the 2002 WSSD Johannesburg Summit wasthe highest attended conference by world leaders, President Bushwas sorely missed. According to original plans, explainedparticipant Kaarin Taipale, "the 2002 WSSD summit would havecoincided with the first anniversary of 9/11." Conference dateswere changed at that the last minute in order to make it easierfor the President to attend. Instead, Secretary of State ColinPowell traveled to Johannesburg to speak on the President'sbehalf, where as Taipale recalls, "he was infamously booed."Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobrianskysoon retorted by telling Summit attendees to focus on actions,"actions being better than words." U.S. action has been remiss.Vice Chairman of Friends of the Earth Tony Juniper said theUnited States has a lot to answer for what has gone wrong sincethe Rio de Janeiro Summit in 1992. Many trends that werecategorized as urgent at that summit - such as poverty,biodiversity loss, deforestation, and overexploitation ofrenewable resources - had either stayed the same or becomeworse. First, the U.S. refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol atthe 2002 Summit - the single most important environmental treatyto stop Climate Change. In addition, Juniper reported, the BushAdministration had been telling the world about the importanceof free trade while protecting its own steel industry and hikingagricultural subsidies to the degree of harming other nations.In fact, heavy pressure on the U.S. Administration for Bush notto attend the Summit, said Juniper, seemed to originate with thebig business and corporate lobby. U. S. representatives to theSummit proposed business friendly partnerships, but opposed thevery necessary targetive actions on sustainable development.Although the United States makes up four percent of the world'spopulation and produces 22 percent of the world's greenhousegases, it's refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol's call forreductions in the greenhouse gases merely underscores Federalunwillingness to address climate change. Claiming that thetreaty would raise energy prices and kill five million U.S.jobs, the Administration has even raised questions about thescientific legitimacy of climate change. As British PetroleumCEO John Browne put it, "The time to consider the policydimensions of is not when the link isconclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot bediscounted." The Union of Concerned Scientists, a group of 6,000scientists, including 48 Nobel laureates, warns that the Bushadministration's overtly anti-science bias undercuts scientificintegrity. This bias was clear when the The New York Timesreported that a White House official who once led the oilindustry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases hadrepeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that playdown links between such emission and global warming. The WhiteHouse response: the reports were "scientifically sound." AsJournalist and author Chris Mooney explained, the Administrationrelied on those energy interests who have a documented historyof muddying the role that humanity plays in whileconsciously strategizing to "sow confusion on the issue and swayjournalists." According to a study published by Princetonprofessors Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala, the U.S. couldreduce emissions to below the 1970 levels just with its currenttechnology. "We in fact already have everything we need to facethis challenge," Vice President Gore has said, "save perhapspolitical will. But in our democracy political will is arenewable resource." Because the Federal government has failedto get involved internationally, state and local officials havebeen left alone to address the gravity of excess greenhouse gasemissions. Without Federal direction, Senator Clinton haswarned, the varying standards that result from the differencesin local policies could create havoc for the private sector. Tomake matters worse, approximately 100 high-level Administrationofficials who help regulate industries they once represented -as lobbyists, lawyers, or company advocates - are all part of aneffort to avoid addressing global warming. (2004, NaturalResources Defense Council (NRDC)). London's "Guardian" hasfurther reported that the environmental group Greenpeaceobtained documents indicating President Bush's global climatepolicy was heavily influenced by Exxon, Mobil and other oilcompanies. In briefing papers given to U.S. Under Secretary ofState Paula Dobriansky between 2001 and 2004, "theadministration is found thanking Exxon executives for thecompany's 'active involvement' in helping to determine climatechange policy, and also seeking its advice on what climatechange policies the company might find acceptable." Quietly, inthe background of policy change, by mid August 2004 theAdministration had already rolled back more than 400 majorenvironmental mandates, causing the protection of our nation'sair, water, public land and wildlife to be severely weakened.This anti-environment spirit, reports Robert Kennedy, Jr.,pervades virtually all of the Sub-secretariats today, includingthe Department of Agriculture, Interior, and Energy. In contrastto entering public service for the public interest, theseofficials are motivated by the intent to specifically subvertthe very law they are now charged with enforcing. "The currentAdministration," he says, "has put the most insidious pollutersin charge of all the agencies that are supposed to protect theAmerican people from pollution." One notable exception wasChristine Whitman, appointed by Bush to head the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA). In 2002, she released a report statingthat was an urgent problem created by humanactivity that would quickly create other problems unlessimmediately addressed. A public relations crisis ensued whenMyron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute declared"someone should be fired" over this. Apparently, White HouseChief of Staff on Environmental Quality and former lobbyist forthe American Petroleum Institute Philip Cooney did not see(edit) the report before it was released. President Bushpublicly discounted the report by calling it a report from "thebureaucracy." Whitman resigned from the EPA soon after. At theClinton Global Initiative, a summit of actions and results heldby President Clinton in New York last September, Al Gorereported that some of those who benefit from unrestrainedpollution from global warming also spend millions of dollarseach year creating pseudo-studies that cloud the issue. This isnot the first time this type of swaying from industry lobbyistshas occurred. After the Surgeon General warning of the dangersof smoking, Gore noted, the tobacco industry hired 'scientificprostitutes' to argue that smoking was good for people. Whilesuch actions can be understood, he said, they are notacceptable, "not when the fate of the earth - rather, the fateof a habitable earth for human beings -- is at stake." He quotedmuckraker Upton Sinclair who wrote more than a century ago: "Itis difficult to get a man to understand something when hissalary depends upon him not understanding it."
Article Continues at: http://www.elizabethautumn.com/id97.html
About the author:Elizabeth Autumn, MBA, is a freelance reporter. She coversenvironment and corporate governance issues. Completing herMasters in Environmental Management at Harvard University,Elizabeth also writes for Crane's Magazine, Create Magazine, andPublishers Weekly. Prior to this she was a freelance producerfor Fox News, in addition she worked for CBS News on theEmmy-Award winning CBS Documentary "9-11", The Early Show, and60 Minutes.
Additional Resources
Drive Slower, Save The Planet!
By Sophie Evans, Fri Dec 9th
Site: Hoot Article Release details: Immediate Date: 23September 2005Drive slower, save the planet! The environment is a hot issue that we just can't afford toignore any longer. To Read more...
|
Additional Resources
Climate Change – What’s All That About?
By Davis Green
Well….. The greenhouse effect is the natural process by which the atmosphere traps some of the Sun's energy, warming the Earth enough to support life as we know it!When humans cut down trees Read more...
|
We strive to provide only quality articles, so if
there is a specific topic related to climate change that you would
like us to cover, please contact us at any time.
And again, thank you to those contributing daily to
our climate change website.
