When reading this article I couldn't help but be a little surprised. Granted, I don't spend every day watching the news for new clean-energy legislation in the United States but I did not realize that we, as a nation, were so far behind in the "race" to save the planet. However, I did a little further research because I was confused about the Friedman article and whilst doing so, I came across some conflicting views. It's difficult to know who is "right" in this situation or if anyone is right at all. It seems that while the United States is behind when it comes to "above-ground mining" capabilities, we are not behind when it comes to creating green jobs or promoting green architecture and the use of green energy. In addition, although there hasn't been a clean-energy bill recently, the US does appear to have more public support for "living green" than other countries around the world, including China. On the other hand, the Friedman article did point out many ways in which the US is lagging behind in the global attempt to prevent climate change. I agree with Janelle in that much of the developing world's progress may have come from the Clean Development Mechanisms created by the Kyoto Protocol that allow developed nations to earn "carbon credits" for financing green technology projects in developing nations such as China and India. This suggests that nations like China may only be doing these green programs because they are being sudsidized by developed countries. Although I suppose it doesn't matter why it's getting done as long as it is getting done in the first place.
When talking about climate change, I believe that refering to it as a race between the US and other countries can be both positive and negative. It can be good because as the leading world power, the United States may feel the need to "win" a race for an environmental cause. Unfortunately, our policy makers have clearly not felt that need yet, and instead, they have felt it more important to try to discredit the whole issue. Since everyone loves to win races, it may be that talking about green energy as a race may be an incentive for nations around the world to try to "win" and prevent the appearence of not caring about climate change. As Friedman's article said, China is not pretending that climate change doesn't exist and neither should the United States. With further public pressure, policy makers will hopefully feel the need to have the US take it's place as a leader in the global fight against climate change. Contrastingly, the idea of a "race" could take the emphasis off of clean energy and put it on increased technology instead, whether that technology is good for the environment or not.
I agree that climate change should be addressed through technological innovation and a refocusing of the economy's priorities on "green" manufacturing. I believe that technological advances could be a saving grace for the future of the planet. However, it is not enough to just be changing the focus of manufacturing. It is the entire economic system that needs to change, not just the product of the current system. Overall, it will take a lot more than just reusable plastic bags to save the Earth but for now, a focus on green manufacturing could be a sizable step in the right direction. If it is necessary for the US to be in a race, it would be better for us to lose the race to save the Earth than to win the race to the end of the Earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment