The end-of-the-year conference in Copenhagen has been hotly debated, casting much doubt that definitive agreements could be made between developing and industrialized nations. On the table were deadlines for cutting a large amount of emissions worldwide by 2012 as well as aid for poorer countries. The major event that threatened to eclipse significant progress was a showdown with U.S. and China slinging personal attacks and blame for neither side sticking to agreed limits of reducing greenhouse gases, and the U.S. pushing for China to be more transparent in how it handles emissions reductions. After a boycott of the conference early into the meeting by the G77, a coalition of 130 developing nations, the talks were in danger of falling flat. The Kyoto Protocol was developed in 1997 and went into force in 2005. As of November 2009, 187 countries have signed and ratified it, with the U.S. being the final holdout.
Although the initial reasons for the Clinton and Bush Administrations for not ratifying the bill through Congress was fear of economic hardships from adhering to the Protocol’s standards, there was also a simmering objection to China’s exemption as the largest polluter, and distinctions between member nations. Times have changed, it seems. Although in April 2009 in Turkey President Obama stated that it doesn’t make sense for the U.S. to now sign the Kyoto Protocol since it is almost near projected completion and wouldn’t show significant change, international pressure has ramped up. There have been more efforts domestically as well as internationally to get the U.S. to agree to some significant emissions reduction since Obama’s campaign platform expressly addressed climate change and his belief in the scientific evidence over Bush’s skepticism. The federal stalling of adopting any binding legislation on combating global climate change has not deterred individual states from enacting significant pledges to reduce their emissions and implement other sweeping changes for greener living. Nine states representing 20 percent of the population (46 million people) created the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and as of June 2009, 944 major cities in all 50 states (including Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia) have supported the Protocol and are actively working to meet their own emissions reduction criteria. Some environmental economists criticize the Protocol, saying the costs outweigh the benefits, and there are inequities between requirements for different nations.
Regardless of the naysayers, however, Copenhagen has shown the most recent efforts and setbacks in reaching any type of consensus on global climate change. Whether the U.S. likes it or not, we are at the head of any worldwide decisions concerning emissions reduction and anthropogenic climate change. This means that what we do (or do not do) affects how the rest of the world falls in line. The Copenhagen meetings have been especially tense because the personal feud between China and the U.S. over acceptable limits and political transparency caused a walkout by 130 developing nations. These nations view the stalling by two large polluters that have many resources (and economic ties to each other) as unacceptable given that they are the top among other industrialized nations that have had years to pollute with impunity. The 2012 goal of slowing down our climate impact can only be reached, according to scientists, when all countries take stock of their contributions and reduce waste accordingly. International squabbles risk derailing the entire enterprise.
There is hope on the horizon, however. On December 17, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at Copenhagen. She quoted a Chinese proverb, “When you are in a common boat, you have to cross the river peacefully together”. This about sums-up the ultimate situation for every member nation and the world. She rounded out this statement with a pledge that the U.S. is prepared to raise $100 billion with other rich nations by 2020 to assist poorer nations and keep their commitments to combat climate change. The deal is only good if China agrees to submit to more inspections of its efforts, and makes a significant commitment. China’s premier said that they were willing to cut 40-45% of its emissions and allow limited monitoring. It is not a perfect deal where everyone wins, but it seems to be a step in the right direction using international pressure and compromise for a common goal.
Obama’s next move would be to get the Senate on board to approve a reduction in pollution by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020, and simultaneously agree to help raise that $100 billion. These are daunting tasks to consider, especially when 2010 brings new treaties to be approved, and Obama’s second full year is being closely watched for significant improvements in our economy.
We will be following these efforts for progress at Guts.Glam.Grace and encourage our readers to do the same. Don’t forget that you can still pressure your local and state officials to sign onto green initiatives without waiting in the sidelines for a federal mandate. Even if you are undecided in debates about the solid science behind calls for emissions reductions, there is no harm in reducing our dependency on volatile oil products or relationships with nations that do not have the best interests of U.S. security and values at heart. The more municipalities that commit and start making changes earlier, the more convincing it will be for Congress to get on board when they see grassroots efforts are attainable. For more up-to-date information on the U.S. position on global climate change domestically and internationally, visit the Union of Concerned Scientists website, www.ucsusa.org.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#United_States
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17032586/ns/us_news-environment/
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/senator-murkowskis-epa-0327.html
No related posts.
Tags: Healthy Living, Socially Conscious
Loading ...
