Maybe one of the most compelling arguments offered by anti-environment politicians for not regulating GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions is that developing countries like China and India have to commit to regulations, as well.
It’s an argument that’s fairly strong, because it recognizes the global scope of the problem. This has become especially relevant now that we know China has surpassed the US as the foremost contributor to CO2 releases. If a solution to climate change is to be implemented, it would certainly have to address an international effort to curb emissions.
Old China, New Problems
The problem, of course, is this: who goes first? There will certainly be up-front costs associated with moving from a dirty to a green energy system, especially in nations the size of the US and China. Anti-environment types generally argue that if we go first, not only will climate change continue (on account of the lack of cooperation from places like China), but Americans will lose jobs and money.
It’s a tough sell. And this very argument took place earlier this month at a House Global Warming hearing. According to the National Journal’s Congress Daily, Congressman James Sensenbrenner tangled with Democrats over an upcoming conference in Copenhagen regarding climate change. Representative Jay Inslee, a Democrat from the fine and beautiful state of Washington, responded by saying, “You can’t blame everything on China when you haven’t done anything at home.”
I think there’s some truth to that. At what point do we start taking responsibility for our emissions?
The truth of the matter is, we have better research institutions, well-organized businesses, and a culture that values hard work and social mobility. We have a TON of problems, don’t get me wrong. But I do think that America has an opportunity to really solve this problem.
When it really comes down to it, the question of whether or not we should start working at home on climate change before going abroad is as much an ethical one as a political one. What right do we have to lecture developing nations who are simply following the same economic route we took decades ago? At the same time, how do we constructively teach other nations about the folly of our way of doing business?
We need to balance our willingness to be leaders in sustainability with a recognition that we got to where we are by destroying a good part of this planet (and we still continue to do so). We can’t be too preachy, but we also can’t stand by and watch other nations destroy their land, as well.
In all honesty, I don’t have a great deal of hope for an international climate change treaty that will be effective. One the other hand, I know little to nothing about international politics and diplomacy (I don’t even know how to spell “diplomacy”…thank God for Google), so there may be a shred of hope lurking out there that I’m just not aware of.
But to go back to the debate…who is to blame? The US, or China? What’s more important: the historical releases of GHGs, or the current releases? These are questions that ought to be addressed at home before we go abroad with our contribution to international regulation.
There is a fallacy of assuming anyone questioning the premises of the Green movement is anti-environment. As much as that label helps polarize people into opposing groups, it is only an attempt to evade discussions about different options and the validity of the various arguments. Separating the world into us and them is the typical technique of radicals who have weak reasons to justify their purpose. The Green harshly critizise President Bush, who used such methods.