Skip to main content

July 12, 2009 – The members of G8 say they are all on board to make dramatic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The members of G18 are nowhere near as enthusiastic, for obvious – although, at this point, shopworn – reasons. I think there is cause to rejoice and there is cause

to worry. Cause to rejoice in that the United States has finally assumed a leadership role in confronting the issue of global climate change. This is what the rest of the world has long awaited. If we can believe President Obama, he has little interest in half measures. The time to act is now, by employing a head-on approach. For this we can all take a moment to be grateful. It is the job of every American to hold the President and his administration accountable.

Cause to worry because China and India, members of the G18, are not in any hurry to crack down on polluters. Their argument is well known: they’ve just begun to develop economically, and want time for development’s effects to create a stable middle class in each country. Were time not so very much of the essence, it would be a reasonable argument. Because the entire world’s future hangs in the balance, the actions of these two countries with regard to climate change could well bring about Armageddon.

How on earth are these two points of view to be reconciled? Do we tell China and India, “Ok, you have until 2020 to pillage and loot your natural resources, but after that, the party’s over?” How can anyone say that, in good conscience? They need to stop now! However, I can’t imagine that ANY kind of limitations on their capacity to mine what’s left of their natural resources would sit well; after all, the United States has been acting like there’s no tomorrow for 200 hundred years in our mindless quest for booty – some would say longer. We suffer, among other things, from a dire lack of role models.

Here, then, are some thoughts for consideration:

- every country in the world must be subject to the same regulations

- the regulations invoked must be put in place immediately, with a gradual decrease in environmental damage the end result, down to an agreed-upon level

- rich countries must help poor countries with the simplest and most

cost-effective help available

- representatives of all nations will meet on an ongoing basis in order to address climate change in all its varied aspects

- the idea of a sabbatical year for the earth will be discussed at these meetings

Goodness knows, we’ve got a long row to hoe. Better get started.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Truly, There's Nothing to be Afraid of

February 26, 2013 – The 1960s scared conservatives worse than I knew – worse than a lot of us knew, I guess.   Certainly I lived through that period.   Certainly young adults found their voices, and had the nerve to object to being put through the meat grinder called Vietnam.   Black Americans continued to seek justice and equality in their adopted homeland.   Change was inevitable.   It’s understandable that conservatives wanted a say in what those changes would be.   Their fearful reaction was – and is - badly overblown.   Others’ happiness is nothing to fear.     These longed-for changes cost conservatives nothing but their unearned, self-satisfied atrophy.   Young people went on dying, even so. It turns out all of that change scared the socks off market fundamentalists.   Determined to return the country to its previous perceived state of inertia, Lewis Powell wrote a memorandum for the US Chamber of Commerce, urging a sh...

A Rock and a Hard Place

October 8, 2012 - Such a pickle: we have the coal, but no longer want to burn it.  China wants the coal, but shouldn't burn it because of the resulting air pollution.  Coal mining companies in the U.S. are ready and waiting to ship their coal to China.  Citizens of the U.S. living on its west coast are adamant they want nothing to do with exporting coal.  That includes Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber.  Kitzhaber's April 25 letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar expresses his profound skepticism about shipping coal by way of Oregon's ports.  He has requested that a programatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) first be conducted for all five of the export projects currently being considered, as well as a comprehensive policy review.  Here is part of a press release announcing his letter: "I have concerns about proceeding in this direction [exporting coal to China via Oregon ports] in the absence of a full national discussion about the ramif...