A Green Future - Cash or Climate?

As we enter the season of Presidential politics, we can expect the discourse to become more partisan, less objective and at times downright silly.  There are very serious and far reaching issues that the country must come to grips with and there are arguments that should be heard on both sides. It is not productive, therefore, to hide the issues in an avalanche of rhetoric, misinformation and ignorance. One particularly important and divisive element of the debate is one of the oldest in our country, the role of the States and the role of the Federal Government.  It is a legitimate question.  Certainly, there are grounds to be concerned about the intrusion of the Federal Government into our daily lives and to worry about excessive regulation and its impact on economic growth.  But, to carry on this debate, as if we were still living in the 18th century, is not very productive for dealing with today's global problems. 

Some of the problems we will have to deal with over the next fifty years will not stop at our borders, either those of our home states or of our nation.  States acting on their own or even in coordination with one another are not sufficient to the task.  Similarly, the United States cannot hope to meet some potential and actual foreseeable threats to the well being of our people without international cooperation that involves US leadership.  It is a pipe dream to think we can go it alone, and it is a nightmare to contemplate the results if we try to do so.  Not only does it not make sense in these circumstances to speak of “states rights,” it also makes no sense to speak of “fortress America.”

Governor Perry of Texas questioned whether human activity is causing global warming even though up to 98% of climate scientists believe that the linkage is clear.  But, for the sake of argument, let’s say he is right: human activity is not causing global warming.  However, even he cannot deny that ice caps are melting and temperature measurements over time seem to indicate a warming trend.  Whatever the cause of this trend, whether it is human activity or cyclical patterns, the effect of warming on us will be the same.  If the world is getting warmer, that will have an impact on growing seasons, food supply, disease transmission, flooding, weather patterns, and so on.  Furthermore, the impact will be unevenly distributed within our country and globally. 

There are at least three ways to deal with this: 1. Kick the can down the road, ignore it, stick our heads in the sand - the Perry solution - and hope it all turns out OK; 2. try to slow the process down by adjusting human behavior so that we are not adding to the problem by speeding up and intensifying the cyclical process of warming – the EPA solution of curtailing CO2 among other steps (Now taken off the table by President Obama in the face of industry opposition.); or 3. Start planning and acting now to prepare ourselves to live with a warmer world and begin to take steps toward environmental remediation.

Steps to adjust current behavior was the direction the EPA and the President were taking, but it was blocked by well funded business and political interests who beat the drums of jobs and recession leading Obama to cave in.   Realistically, so long as adjustment will lead to reduced profitability, nothing will happen, at least until after the 2012 election and only with difficulty thereafter given the composition of our Congress, the Supreme Court, and our campaign financing laws (or lack thereof).

Steps toward remediation will also incur costs now, and while it might well actually create jobs in the short term, it would be pilloried by the Tea Party as yet another government hand out and expansion of Federal encroachment on our American way of life.  Thus, the temptation at all levels of government and certainly among the bulk of conservative voters, will be to put off today what can be done tomorrow.  It is easier to question the science and to blame the scientists for feathering their own nest than the wealthy who have feathers in abundance.  The easy path is the Perry path. 

Given our annual budget process based on annual expenditures, and in the absence of a separate national investment budget for the long term, it does not appear that our two party system will be able to embrace short term sacrifice to gain long term benefits.  Look at how wrenching and inconclusive our recent debt debate was.  There was a plethora of rhetoric about saddling future generations with our present debt.  But, God forbid we should equalize the current burden to solve the longer term problem.  Tax the wealthy, cut farm subsidies, extend the age of social security? Or none of the above.  The effects of the debt burden on future generations seems to be a concept that people can understand only in terms of placing the burden of sacrifice on others. So we do nothing and hope for the best.  The Perry solution is the easiest. And, guess who will have to pay the ultimate price?

Comments

[Li Xinyang]

I was doing reading just now and saw a parallel between the opinion of Ambassador Walker and that of Hans J. Morgenthau. Here they are!

“Given our annual budget process based on annual expenditures, and in the absence of a separate national investment budget for the long term, it does not appear that our two party system will be able to embrace short term sacrifice to gain long term benefits … But, God forbid we should equalize the current burden to solve the longer term problem” (Walker).

“The statesman must take the long view, proceeding slowly and by detours, paying with small losses for great advantage; he must be able to temporize, to compromise, to bide his time. The popular mind wants quick results; it will sacrifice tomorrow’s real benefit for today’s apparent advantage” (Morgenthau).

[Knute Gailor]

The divisiveness of U.S. politics, and Congress’s resulting inability to legislate effectively on the issue of climate change, means the federal government will be unable to take meaningful action to prepare the country for life on a warmer planet in the foreseeable future. Effectively confronting the challenges posed by a warming planet, however, demands that our nation take bold and immediate action to reduce carbon emissions, study the impact of climate change on global ecosystems, and create an economy independent of carbon. The seeming impossibility of, but pressing need for, national action means that states, or consortiums of states, must step up and pass cap and trade schemes, enact more stringent emissions standards, and develop the technologies that will allow us to deal with a warmer planet. Addressing climate change on a state or intrastate level is a realistic strategy that lays the groundwork for eventual national action and ensures that we are confronting climate change in the meantime.

States and groups of states have already taken steps to reduce their carbon emissions and prepare for the future. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), for example, is a cap and trade scheme set up by ten northeastern states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont) that will reduce the region’s carbon emissions significantly by 2020. In 2008, the state of Massachusetts independently passed the “Global Warming Solutions Act,” a law that mandated an eighty percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and instructed the state’s Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs to set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions between ten and twenty five percent below 1990 levels to be reached by 2020.[1] Both the RGGI and state of Massachusetts’ efforts have thus far proven effective and minimally costly. Broadened state participation in well-run cap and trade schemes could prove that national climate change policies could reduce the negative effects of global warming at minimal cost.

Although individual state action will surely not solve the issue of climate change, Americans should press their state representatives to create or participate in a cap and trade scheme and prepare for life on a warmer planet. State-level reforms on climate change policy will ultimately lead to national reforms, as in the case of air-quality standards. (President Obama, for example, recently saw the federal government adopt California’s old but stringent air-quality standards.[2] )

While we wait for the national government to catch up with responsible and environmentally conscious states, individual and state efforts to combat global warming must continue. They are the most productive and realistic solution to the problem of climate change at this time.

[Nate House]

When I think of Rick Perry and his like-minded coterie, I conjure a pack of spoiled preteen brats marked with a scatter of pimples, sneers, and downcast scowls as they recklessly chase a rattling can down a suburban street. Why this image, you ask? To begin with, as Ambassador Walker persistently points out in his blog entry, Perry and Co. have no interest in picking their heads up to cast their rapt gaze at what might lie beyond the tumbling shiny can. That which is too far ahead for these boys and girls is not worth serious consideration, which is a travesty due to the fact that that is our future, and how it unfolds depends greatly on what we do about it now. If closing our eyes, and plugging our ears is one approach, there must then be another; one that is more courageous and willing to take the hit now for the unborn days and years ahead.

Government generally moves slowly, as most organizations with many components, perspectives and interests do. So, making quality decisions, and transforming policy and underpinning perspectives overnight is a lot to ask from such a slothful behemoth as the Federal Government. There are, however, short-term measures that would positively influence long-term outcomes. These measures can and must be taken in order to ensure a better future for generations to come notwithstanding the growing pains and certain sacrifices involved. Upending electoral funding is one of these critical game changers. Making elections one hundred percent publicly funded would redirect and limit the legitimate interests of politicians and prohibit businesses from getting too involved with government. The voices of constituent populations would swell and carry political action more so than they have in the last few decades since big businesses have taken the helm. Public funding would force politicians to listen more intently and act in the best interests of the people, and would limit the potential distraction and misplaced loyalties of big money.

As Amb. Walker points out, the steps toward alleviation that accrue costs now will be delayed until at least post-election 2012. However, a major upheaval of the campaign financing system would make change apparent sooner. In addition, state governments can work together under the radar to align on salient issues as exemplified by those states involved with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).

Rick Perry, and groups like the Tea Party fail to entertain ideas bent toward remediation of unsustainable policies and mitigation of destructive global impact. Turning from our own self-interests to national and global empathy and action in favor of greater universal wellbeing, is a concept foreign not only to politicians, but to laypeople, as well. How often in human history has a powerful society acted outside of its own self-interests? Turning outward in this fashion is a crucial and unprecedented move that must happen. This demands creativity, humility, concession, negotiation and compromise; all things that certainly don’t happen overnight with short sighted can-kickers such as Perry.

[Amanda Barnes]

The title of Ambassador Walker’s post evokes the line often heard in the checkout line of any store, “cash or credit,” which boils down to pay now or pay later. Clearly this parallel is not accidental, it gets to the center of recent conflicts in American politics. This represents the divergent views held by the Republican and Democratic parties on several key issues. One area which has been at the mercy of this conflict is one that Ambassador Walker discusses in his article, global warming. It appears to be the platform of the Republican Party to deny its existence, which according to Walker is one of 3 ways to deal with the current climate crisis. The other two require a basic acknowledgement that human beings are in some way responsible for climate change and that we have to take action now to begin improving the situation. By simply refusing to accept global climate change’s existence, the Republican party is able to avoid having to put the screws to some of its financial backers, companies and corporations who’s practices may be harmful to the environment, and therefore avoid loosing their support before the 2012 election.

The Democrats are guilty of taking the pay later approach to issues as well. The recent debt ceiling crisis highlights the fact that there are issues with the national debt and deficit. Although the debt ceiling crisis was a giant game of chicken, a power struggle between the parties leading up to the campaign season, out of which no winners emerged, it highlighted the fact that the national debt is growing quickly and that soon this could pose a major issue for our government. In this instance it was the Democrats who were unwilling to confront this issue before the election, preferring to raise the debt ceiling without tackling the roots of the issue.

I think Ambassador Walker raises an interesting point in his final paragraph, perhaps this is a failing of the two party system. One of the more tangible benefits of a multi-party system is the necessity of parties to form coalitions with one another to gain majorities to get bills passed. This generally, though not always, has the effect of keeping politics and political discourses near the center; as opposed to our two party systems, which encourages our parties to establish themselves in (ideological) opposition to the other. Nonetheless, I don’t foresee a dramatic sweeping change to the American party system that would correct these perceived ills occurring anytime soon. That is not to say that change is impossible. Ultimately, I can’t predict if change will come, when it will come, what form it will take or who will be leading the charge, but I’ll be watching for it.

[Lyman Munschauer]

As Ambassador Walker has implied, our politicians today are primarily interested in getting elected, a desire that has hindered the United States’ ability as a country to deal with and plan for long-term issues. One such example of this is the energy consumption crisis in this country. The reason why politicians have had trouble reforming energy policies is because they are afraid that the necessary changes will initially cause an increase in cost for their voters, causing them to lose their jobs as elected officials. Instead I believe that our politicians, both Republican and Democrat, need to look at and present the energy problem in a different way. This problem should be addressed as a way to protect American interests in a changing global world.
The first step is to become less dependent on foreign oil. Politicians must inform voters of vast natural gas and oil reserves that our country possesses, in addition to reminding them that gas and other nonrenewable energy sources are becoming increasingly more expensive, particularly when we deal with oil rich countries that do not have American interests at heart. Politicians must point out that the natural resources that American citizens own and control are more reliable than other alternatives. As an added bonus, politicians can remind voters that the money and jobs created from the oil will stay within the United States, instead of supporting another country’s economy halfway across the world.
The second step that must be taken to fix the United States’ energy problem is to invest in viable and renewable American energy sectors such as wind and solar energy. Both of these options, along with others, could safely power our country if they are given enough support and funding. Politicians should also appeal to voters’ fear by pointing out that these renewable resources will protect us from unfriendly countries that hope to use their resources as a way to gain power. Politicians must once again appeal to voters’ desire for a safe country; no parent wants to see their child’s generation having to rely on another country to survive. Politicians must draw upon the fundamental American belief that we are free, free to choose from options that are in our best interests.
These two steps will allow politicians to help start to solve our energy problem by looking to the future and by keeping constituents happy. These courses of action appeal to voters’ fears and give them a reason to dream of a brighter future, not only for their children and grandchildren but also for themselves as well.

[Peter M.]

Global climate change is not only a complex problem, but also a pertinent issue to address. However, before we delve into this specific issue, let’s focus first on the federal versus state debate raised in the beginning of the original article. Consistent with the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the states, or citizens, are entitled to any rights not specifically enumerated to the federal government. Ironic to this specific case, states have historically cited the Tenth Amendment as an exemption from adhering to federal regulations in regards to environmental and energy issues.

With this in mind, Governor Perry’s outlook and potential motive becomes slightly clearer. To challenge Ambassador Walker’s position, I am doubtful Governor Perry is blatantly disregarding the scientific evidence presented to substantiate the claims of global warming, or at the very least, global climate change. Instead, I believe Governor Perry has a slightly more mal-adjusted agenda: Perry is utilizing the issue of global warming to gain support for re-firming state and individual rights clearly document in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Typically, the GOP strives to reach those individuals (especially in the western United States) who are more inwardly focused on domestic, rather than international issues. The evidence of a clear climate change is nearly unarguable in 2011: as Ambassador Walker mentioned, statistics of clear temperature change and melting Artic ice caps are readily available. As a result, we perhaps have more to fear as United States citizens than if ignorance were the only rationale behind Governor Perry’s actions.

Ignorance in response to transnational issues is not the true crux of the dilemma – it is blatant disregard of pressing current, global affairs that poses a danger to the future stability of the nation. Reckless political actions are, once again, guiding the future security of the United States. The solution to this issue is certainly not an easy one. However, it begins were the breaching of the two-party divide to address, as Ambassador Walker stresses, global issues and current affairs that no longer respect national borders.

Remediation of the errors made in our political system must be initiated by politicians who recognize that responding to a global threat with a organized, federal response is not a breach of state or individual rights, but rather a necessary requirement in the global arena of today. Governor Perry, in my opinion, will not be able to accomplish this goal. However, it is also evident that President Obama will not succeed with this challenge, as responses to global issues from the White House since 2008 have been slow and lackadaisical, at best.

It is with great hope that the 2012 Presidential Election will bring a contender that can tackle the bicameral, yet ineffective political system currently established in the United States, to aggressively address the pressing global issues that plague our country. Without this type of determination and persistence, the consequences may be too great to recover from.

[Kevin Prior]

Over the summer, I was watching SportsCenter and saw one of the most amazing sporting moments I have ever seen: Democrats and Republicans playing a game of baseball together. The score was irrelevant; what mattered was these two often polarized parties managed to come together over something (and did it with a smile on their faces too).

While this was just a game, I think that spirit of teamwork and working together is something our political system desperately needs to tackle contemporary issues. It is hard for American to be considered a “global leader” when many within its borders think of them more as Democrats or Republicans instead of Americans. Today, politicians are putting their selfish interests and reelection bids ahead of the real needs of the country, like global warming. Why after the debt ceiling crisis was resolved (I use that word loosely) did Wolf Blitzer and his merry band of “the best political team on television” talk about the “winners and losers” of issue? The only winners and losers in this country are the American people and it is about time our elected officials remembered that.

Global warming is one of the most pressing needs this epoch of American (and global) history faces and will require this spirit of American unification to deal with. There is a lot of disagreement over how to deal with the global warming, even within our own borders. As Ambassador Walker observes, despite the facts, some scientists and important political figures, like Republican candidate for President Rick Perry, do not believe the evidence and question the causal link between global warming and human activity. Outlandish comments like this serve no purpose in the discourse and provide more entertainment than constructive assistance to the problem at hand.

As my colleague Anthony rightly points out, a portion of this global warming does comes from natural means and going into panic mode would be an ill-advised move for politicians. I agree, but at the same time believe we should look to the future and figure out how to best position the country. A possible idea: make America the global hub of “green” technologies. By investing time and money into green technologies now, the United States can lay the foundation for an industry that is going to be extremely important (and likely very profitable) in the next twenty years. Especially with the recent globalization readings, we have been hearing about American job loss. This new industry promises to create thousands, if not millions of new jobs for citizens who desperately need them. Moreover, it would allow politicians to come together on something that would benefit mankind for years to come and something they could go to bed proud of accomplishing.

The threat is real and will require American leadership stemming from our elected officials in Washington. As citizens, we need to do our part and encourage our representatives to deal with global warming in a responsible and realistic way. This is one issue we cannot afford to strike out on.

[Daniel Peters]

Ambassador Walker makes the argument that it doesn’t matter the causes behind global warming, whether it happened naturally through global climate shifts or if greenhouse gas emissions were the main cause, it doesn’t matter. What does matter is that the Planet is in fact getting warmer and the effect on humans will be the same regardless of the cause. Instead of sticking our heads in the sand with Governor Perry and hoping for everything to turn out OK we need to prepare ourselves starting today. It sounds easier than it is. Constant debate over whether to use a national or state level “green” plans has only slowed down the process of creating a sustainable future.

Making decisions for something that will never affect you is a lot easier and less stressful than making decisions that do have a direct impact on you. The decisions you do make for something that has no threat on your lifestyle has the potential to provide lackluster efforts with minimal positive results. I believe this is happening to some Politicos with regards to environmental protection decisions. In most cases the decision they make will likely have no effect on them, but may have serious impacts on the young adults and teenagers of today’s world. With this said it is our duty as young adults to grasp the problems that we will face down the road and create the most suitable plan for it.

The push towards a greener future is going to be expensive. The greener our plan is the more green that comes out of our pockets. This is a challenging obstacle in creating a “planet protection” plan, but it must be overcome in order for us to be able to avoid “panic” when our climate changes. Will a long-term plan put our economy further into debt? Very well could happen, but consider the lives and trouble it could save us down the road. Also, think about the thousands of jobs that will be created with a large scale plan. The smart and safe path is to prepare for the worse and the easy path is to wait and see what happens. It is up to us.

[Sam Choate]

Ambassador Walker is right in highlighting how important it is for our government to unite and to start addressing key global issues that will persist into the future. Global warming is amongst many issues moving forward that humans have to address in order for our earth to continue to sustain its current level of output and comfort.
I agree with Ambassador Walker’s critique of Gov. Perry’s point of view on global warming. The fact that 98% of scientists agree that global warming is linked to human behavior is something that cannot be glanced over. Therefore, the Federal Government must not simply ignore this problem and pray it doesn’t get worse. Rather, we should confront it head on or else all will suffer…government officials included.
The United States has been put on its heels in years past. 9/11 marked a time where Federal Government intervention was needed to prevent more destruction. So, what did our government do? Federal officials revamped our entire security system by implementing new measures, technology, and a variety of other defense packages. They retaliated and put in preemptive measures to thwart a future attack. Bottom line: our government acknowledged an obvious problem and confronted it.
Our current global warming issue is similar in the sense that Federal action and money is needed to prevent a disaster from occurring. If officials let 9/11 pass without fundamental changes in how our country is run, there would have likely been another attack on our nation. Similarly, if officials adopt Gov. Perry’s laissez-faire mentality concerning humans’ role in global warming, a disaster will occur. Like 9/11, global warming is an obvious problem that must be confronted. Ambassador Walker is correct by insinuating that future generations will have to “pay the ultimate price” both in cash and in environmental destruction. Hopefully the rest of our elected officials will get on board.

[Maria Lozada]

People neglect the issue of climate change because they believe it won’t affect then yet weather patterns have already become more extreme. While the American Congress and people focus solely on the economy, areas in the world turned from vital agricultural lands to deserts while others experienced devastating floods. A few weeks ago a Hurricane went up the US east coast causing damage as far as Canada, an almost unprecedented event. Climate change is a trend occurring right now that will only grow with time.
During his brief term in office JFK once warned that: “There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable inaction.” His words could not possibly more appropriate with everything that’s at stake: massive loss of life from extreme weather, diseases, lack of food and safe drinking water. Just the issue of food security alone can, if unaddressed, profoundly destabilize the world. In 2008 food prices spiked and according to the UN one billion people were left undernourished . Imagine if climate change increased that number by only 10% that’s 100 million people, and the already undernourished were reduced to starving, how many food riots around the world would you predict? Even if violence didn’t immediately follow, the starving have nothing to loose, how safe would you, the country or the world be with a billion of them around? Addressing climate change can’t change all the negative trends affecting food supply but it can touch on most or at least mitigate them. For those who believe that issues like food security don’t apply to this country they’re partially right. The US is certainly not lacking in cheap food. But you know who is, every country south of the border.
Those are just some of the issues climate change will bring up and if the US fails to prepare they will face costs far greater than anything they even imagined would come from “going green.”

[James McGraw]

A major flaw in America’s political system is the high value set on instant gratification and the lack of focus on the future. Many politicians will bring up future plans but will never truly act on them. Our system has trained our political leaders to focus solely on the immediate consequences of actions and risk greater repercussions in the future in exchange for quick, instant results. This type of decision-making might win them more votes and longer career lives in the short term, but enacting the “Perry Plan’s” mindset in political situations only leads to greater problems for the generations of tomorrow. If we choose to keep putting things off and brushing them under the rug, they will only become larger and more ominous in the future. It will be interesting how long it actually takes until the United States government decides that their partisan values are not as important as the countries future and actually makes an initiative to solve problems like global warming together through compromise instead of useless partisan bickering.

[Gabriel Klein]

Regardless of the specific reason, no one can disagree that Earth’s climate is changing. For too long the United States has put off problems that don’t seem immediate, and one such problem is climate control. Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, the time is upon us now to take action for this serious problem.

The best path to take in the United States is to continue to advance our education and production of alternate energy sources. While this infrastructure will be expensive, it will create many jobs in the short term. In the long term, it will lessen our dependency on fossil fuels. Additionally, the government can create a greater tax on fossil fuels.

Thomas Friedman states it well when he says, “Would you rather cut Social Security and Medicare or pay a little more per gallon of gas and make the country stronger, safer and healthier? It still amazes me that our politicians have the courage to send our citizens to war but not to ask the public that question.” As Friedman suggests, legal initiative must be taken by the government, but the facts of global warming need to be exposed to every day citizens on a broad scale. If the general public is better informed, it will understand why the government must take initiative now in passing laws such as a higher tax on gasoline. According to Friedman, taxing gasoline will be beneficial because it will allow other necessary government programs to remain unscathed. If fossil fuels continue to dominate as some of our main energy source, not only will their prices naturally increase as they become more scarce, but they will also continue doing harm to our environment.

The United States should follow the lead that China has recently taken. China, with some of the most polluted cities in the world, realizes it has a problem, and has invested large sums of money into alternative energy sources. China sees the future as the problem of today. As China’s power is exponentially rising in the global market, it is advisable to keep ground with them in the case of alternative energy. Properly investing in alternative energy is a long term process that will be expensive. While no one wants to see the government debt increase, the immediate moral benefit and long term financial revenue will be worth the initial costs.

I agree that the Governor Perry approach of pretending that a problem does not exist is the wrong option to choose. The United States government has made positive steps by enacting some environmental laws, but much more can be done, and needs to be. I agree with Ambassador Walker that options two and three are essential, and a combination of both must be acted on.

Friedman, Thomas. "Is It Weird Enough Yet?."New York Times 14 Sep 2011. A35. Print.

[Kimberly Toop]

I believe this blog successfully focused on several crucial issues that if not addressed in upcoming years or decades will greatly hinder the prospect of future prosperity for the United States. It almost seems silly that politicians, political parties, and American citizens still seem to be agonizing over the matter of state rights versus federal rights. As Ambassador Walker points out in his blog this concern no longer seems nearly as relevant as it back in the 18th and 19th century. With the constant influx of new technologies and the development of globalization it appears implausible to think that the United States as a whole or divided could conquer any of these issues alone. In my opinion the major concern of the United States should not be about the rights of states, but instead the crucial role America plays as a global power. The United States needs to lead world policies by setting a good example and being a good influence rather then bickering about petty things that in the end really don’t matter.
One of these major concerns is obviously the ever present and potentially growing issue of global warming, or to be more scientifically/politically correct, climate change. If the future brings forth what the majority of scientists claim will happen if nothing is done, the world will be forever altered and scarred. To further expand the horror and gravity of this dark hypothesis the impact of this environmental devastation will be largely unequal depending on a person’s location and social class. The poor and developing countries will suffer the most. Even though, ironically, it was the wealthy and developed countries that predominantly contributed to this problem. Although many other issues and concerns exist throughout the United States and the world, without mother Earth all the other social, moral, economic, political, religious and cultural dilemmas simply disappear. This very well might be the greatest challenge of our time.
One of the main frustrations I have with America’s current political system is the constant stagnant drama of liberals (mostly democrats) and conservatives (mostly republicans) butting heads. Great progress could be accomplished involving many national concerns, including the national dept, if both parties were able to put aside their political party and work together towards a common goal. I will say that the conservative trend to stall and dismiss legislation that would bring about positive change greatly irritates me. We are living in a modern age where dire decisions and actions cannot wait weeks, months, years or decades. I believe this worthy quote by Winston Churchill is able to explain this issue in profound words, “The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.” (Winston Churchill) Basically the human race must adapt to act now and not put off things till tomorrow, we must act today.

[Allison Fried]

One of the most fundamental and prized aspects of our country is its stress on the freedom of its peoples. From its very beginnings the United States has fought for the right of its citizens to live without the heavy hand of an autocracy on their shoulders and to possess the ever-exonerated inalienable rights. However, this great blessing of the United States has also grown to be a curse in a time that requires personal sacrifice on the part of each and every one of the United States citizens, citizens who have grown up on the philosophy that they should never have to give up anything.

Thus, the biggest issue in the global warming debate is this; the acceptance of the existence of global warming would, inevitably, mean the forfeiture of some of the “rights” that United States citizens so highly prize. As Ambassador Walker illustrates, the solutions to global warming would necessitate immediate sacrifices, including the sacrifice of allowing federal and local governments to begin regulating aspects of our lives that exacerbate climate change or to at least re-establish some of our living patterns so that we can survive in a warmer world. Fighting against climate change would mean possibly paying more taxes, cutting down on CO2 production and thus further destabilizing our shaky economic situation, or increasing the age of social security. However, these intrusive policies ally themselves with concepts that the free people of the United States have shirked from ever since the Boston Tea Party.

The ambassador put it correctly: the citizens of today would rather throw their burdens onto the shoulders of future generations than give up some of their “rights”, tighten their belts, and confront the issues facing them. However, I must ask today’s citizens this; what makes them think that they have any more right to infringe upon the well-being of all of the future peoples of America, and of the world, than they believe that the United States government has a right to regulate their own lives? In other words, by ignoring the threat of climate change today’s citizens are essentially thrusting their own beliefs and their consequences onto future generations, yet they refuse to allow the same to be done to them. They refuse this because, as Americans, they adhere strongly to the Lockean philosophy that no one, not even a government guided by its own people, should be able to limit one’s immediate capabilities to achieve prosperity or the “American Dream”. Ambassador Walker claims that it is our two party system and annual expenditure budget that are limiting our abilities to make the necessary sacrifices to slow climate change, however, I would go farther to say that it is the attitude of the American peoples, the very values that have helped America to prosper and represent ideals of liberty, that are truly holding the United Sates back.

[Andrew Menges]

It seems that the issues in question go back to the Founding Fathers’ understanding of Republicanism. They believed that if the people could realistically hold sovereignty, then they needed a certain sense of social and political responsibility to ensure that the state of the nation did not fall prey to a multitude of narrow interests at the expense of the public good. Perry’s denial of Global warning is at the heart of this issue. Unless he and the other Republicans assume responsibility for the well being of the nation, instead of protecting narrow corporate interests for the sake of election and re-election, America will, without a doubt, topple from the ledge of pre-eminent nations and fall into the lower realm of the second rate.

Having said this, I do not think that the prospect is really so grim. Yes, corporate interests hinder the Presidents ability to act independently and in the best interests of the country. But to say, “nothing will happen, at least until after the 2012 election” to slow down climate change or help us better prepare us for its consequences, is too bold. Obama has shown defiance in the face of intense opposition before in enacting the universal heath care bill. Who is to say that he will not be able to show defiance in the face of his opposition again before 2012? He does have allies in a Democratic senate. And regardless of select individuals and organizations like Rick Perry and the Tea Party, a large number of American’s believe in the global warming and its effects. I would even venture to guess that for every organization fighting for corporate interests, three or four organizations are campaigning for causes such as clean energy to limit the destruction of our planet. One can even see this activism in large companies like Toyota Motor Corporation and Shell Oil Company. Their products and services contribute to global warming. They have developed and created new ways to limit the negative effects on the environment caused by their products and services such as hybrid cars and cleaner energy.

Despite the ominous feeling that we as Americans have shed our social responsibility to our country, despite the gnawing sensation that our Founding Fathers would be disappointed with the way their republican experiment turned out, I think the pessimism is overstated. Plenty of American’s are doing their best to fix this country, this environment and this world. Focusing on the negative diminishes their efforts and leads only to more negativity. If we focus on and contribute to efforts, already underway, to remedy and prepare for the eventualities of global warming and forget the ignorant naysayers like Rick Perry, then maybe future generations will not have to worry about paying “the ultimate price.”

[Liam Ronan]

I mostly agree with Ambassador Walker’s commentary on this issue; namely, I see the main problem we have is that we are unable to “embrace short term sacrifice to gain long term benefits.” This problem seems to be prevalent throughout our two party system (e.g., Americans are not willing to improve our education system in the short term to gain the benefits that such an improved system would yield in the long term). It appears that widespread facts are ignored in favor of political ideologies. In the case of global warming, as the Ambassador notes, even the vast amount of scientific data on humanity’s contribution to global warming cannot convince some people away from their political ideologies. If people are unwilling to believe scientific data, how else can one convince them? One solution may be to appeal to these unconvinced people by appealing to their individual political ideologies. For instance, Tea-Party members may oppose government intervention in order to deal with global warming. However, one could appeal to this group by using the group’s own rhetoric by pointing out that that limited government on this issue has failed to create a solution; in other words, more government intervention for global warming is needed since the market has failed to create a solution.
A second interesting point that the Ambassador raises is the idea of "international cooperation that involves US leadership.” Such cooperation seems unlikely to be the answer to our current problems given the state of international affairs. One only needs to examine past forms of “international cooperation” to see that contentious issues, such as global warming, are not always solvable in these “cooperative” groups. For example, the problems that arose in the U.N. after the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and its allies show that international groups do not offer agreement on the problems of the world. Such an international organization might proclaim ways in which our government could address the causes of global warming, but I do not think the U.S. would listen to this organization’s suggestions.

[Colin Hill]

If the recent debt debate is anything to go on, partisan politics will prevent action regarding global warming unless the United States Congress can reach some sort of consensus. Reaching such a consensus will be no easy task. With politicians such as Rick Perry, spewing pointless anti global warming dogma, it would seem apparent that Democrat and Republican congressional representatives will not come to a consensus on their own. For this consensus to be reached the hearts and minds of the American people must be swayed. If genuine pressure to act against global warming is placed on politicians by their constituents then actual action will take place.

How can we go about changing the minds of the American people? Perhaps a two-pronged attack is the best option. For people to get behind climate reform, particularly republicans, it is not enough to just convince them that damage will inevitably be done by global warming in the future, that is not an immediate enough threat. Instead we must not only do a better job of publicizing the immediate effects of global warming, but we must also show the American people that there are economic advantages to be found in enacting climate reform. If new developments in alternative energy can continue, and subsequently jobs are created, then the American people, regardless of political party, may get behind attempts to limit global warming. An immediate benefit to the economy is the sort of thing citizens and subsequently congressional representatives can get behind. Lastly, we need to do a better job of emphasizing the political advantages of limiting our consumption of oil and gasoline. People need to understand that limiting our consumption of oil and gasoline, either through a reduction in energy use generally or through the use of alternative, cleaner forms of energy, will free us from our dependence on the OPEC countries and in particular the Middle East. This would allow the United States to distance itself from the Middle East and perhaps reduce tensions with the Muslim world, something individuals on both side of the political spectrum would be happy to see.

If the United States government does decide to take action it will have to figure out the best way to reduce consumption. One option is to attempt to simply guilt the individual citizens into taking action on their own. If we can make the individual consumer feel as though they are personally contributing to global warming then perhaps we can encourage individuals to limit their consumption. I personally do not have much hope for this strategy. Though more people walking and riding bikes instead of using cars will certainly help, and most assuredly will not hurt, attempting to guilt citizens into change will not lead to the widespread and overarching change that is required. Most individuals realize the insignificance of their actions (just look at the difficulty we have getting people out to vote) and despite worry they may have over the world’s future, many will fail to change their habits. Further, simply having half the population use a little less energy each day will not bring about the change that is required. Instead, I feel as though the only means to bring about real change is to convince the United States Citizens that the United States government has to enact overarching reform now to truly limit the current and potential damages of global climate change. This governmental reform will then have to come in two forms. The United States will have to limit energy consumption through rules and regulations, and reward and promote new energy technologies

[Anthony Mathieu]

In his blog post concerning our approach to global warming as a nation, Ambassador Walker provides three ways in which the United States can address this pressing issue: 1)by ignoring the problem, 2)by curtailing human contributions to the cyclical processes of global warming now, 3)or by taking steps to live in a "warmer" world tomorrow. Ambassador Walker goes on to argue that the easier approach is the one of ignorance. Unfortunately, in the partisan nature of American politics today, this approach is the one being indirectly taken.

Obama and the EPA were stymied in their attempts to implement policy by wealthy corporations who disfavored any such actions that would deter business. With election season right around the corner, corporations can sit back and now rely on public servants to continue their efforts in seeing no change in environmental policy. Lack of political cooperation will prevent the United States from taking the necessary steps to develop ways in which we can live comfortably in a challenging world. The U.S. has the opportunity to be an innovative leader in the global environmental sector, but will fail to reach this promiseland if its officials cannot look past their own selfish, private sector-backed interests.

[Helen Lucey]

I agree with Ambassador Walker, that sticking our heads in the sand as Governor Perry suggests, although may be an easy option in the short term is only going to make facing the consequences of global climate change that much harder in the future. Procrastinating, as every college student can tell you, may seem easy at the time, but when the consequences catch up to you it hardly seems worth the delay. Global warming isn't going to fix itself just as that thesis paper isn't going to write itself. Delaying facing the issue is only going to make it harder to get that A.

I also enjoyed the Ambassador's point that although people who, like Perry, believe that global warming isn't man made or at least man exacerbated, still cannot deny the scientific fact that the global climate is changing. These changes are and will continue to cause real economic damage and human suffering across the globe. For example, many coastal towns in America are already having to deal with the reality of rising sea levels causing frequent flooding in residential neighborhoods. A New York Times article by Leslie Kaufman from November 2010, details the struggles of residents in Norfolk, Virginia. During high tide, citizens are unable to drive on common roads or even get to their cars. As a result the city has decided to raise one street by 18 inches, this will cost the city's taxpayers 1.25 million dollars and is only a temporary solution. An increase rate in glacial melting has ed to rising sea levels , which in turn are already causing damage worldwide and costing the communities in these areas large sums of money.

The uneven distribution of consequences caused by global climate change is one of the many reason why climate change cannot simply be fought on the local, state or national level. Communities or nations that may make relatively low contributions to the rise of climate change may end up bearing the brunt of the cost. It is therefore both unreasonable and irresponsible not to face climate change as a nation and international community. Although one nation or state deciding to adopt environmentally friendly policies can help slow down the progression of climate change, only when whole globe cooperate can we drastically change the course of our climate and sufficiently cope with future and present damages.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/science/earth/26norfolk.html

[Cara Bigony]

Our inability to act decisively and productively on the issue of global warming seems to keep coming back to the flaws of a two party system in which the parties are so dramatically polarized. Though a proactive approach to such a global problem is certainly a good idea—as the Ambassador’s post implies—our political system intended to provide checks and balances has instead brought productive action regarding climate change to a standstill. Democrats are more inclined to take the proactive approach; however, Republicans (read: Tea Party) have enough resources within the business community to counter any plans made by democrats. The result looks something like a brother and sister arguing about who left the oven on, all the while the house is burning down around them.
As Ambassador Walker said, the Perry way is the “easy way.” Of the three potential solutions provided, the second and third options—proactive by nature—are our best shots at staving off the effects of global warming. However, without some support from both political parties, we will get nowhere, which is just what happened with the President and EPA’s attempt to modify human behavior.
To reach unity at the national level, we must first listen. The Tea Party has proven the power of its connection to the business world, and thus we must listen to what they’ve said. If we take their complaints with a grain of salt (no matter how much we may disagree with them), we see that the root of their whine is money. This is reasonable, especially considering our national issues of debt and unemployment. Fostering a culture of mindfulness simply won’t cut it. Companies need incentives. The adjustments we make to prepare for global climate change must garner some sort of profitability if we want businesses’ support and the population’s attention.
At the same time, though the right wing’s concern with jobs and national debt is warranted, it should NOT serve as an excuse to back-burner climate change. The challenges posed by climate change pay no attention to country borders, which leads me to believe that nothing short of international cooperation will allow us to deal with these issues sufficiently. Addressing this issue in an international forum may help temporarily unite Republicans and Democrats, who might be more likely to band together as “US Representatives” if we open discussion to the international community. This may also provide a unique opportunity of international leadership in a new field, potentially allowing the US to grab a new important, rising source of power. Though, this approach would take a willingness to spend resources, time, and money now for change in the future.
Despite these suggestions, I cannot help but feel discouraged when what can a leading Republican presidential candidate is saying that climate change is not our fault and not worth our time. If half the country votes for a Republican because of discontent with Obama, I fear the house around the arguing brother and sister will continue to burn.