Opinion
Protect environment locally
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Kate Flick:
- Protect environment locally (December 3, 2004)
- Considering e-waste disposal (November 19, 2004)
- Alternative participation (November 15, 2004)
- Environment on the back burner (November 5, 2004)
- Strange news an ill omen (October 29, 2004)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
In Buenos Aires next week, the world converges in a conference to decide how to best tackle global warming. With the infamous Kyoto Protocol finally set to go into affect after seven years of stagnation in the approval process, reducing greenhouse gas emissions of industrialized nations by 2012, as stated in the protocol, may dominate the agenda.
It’s pretty old hat that the United States federal government refused and still refuses to sign the treaty, feeling it would too greatly handicap economic development. Since the pact required the approval of countries responsible for 55 percent of emissions and as the producer of one quarter of all world emissions, this U.S. refusal greatly hampered the process. Russia, who pumps out 17 percent of world emissions, recently agreed to reduce its pollution so that now the Kyoto is revving up its engine to reduce greenhouse gases worldwide.
For the last 4,000 centuries (minus the last 50 years), carbon dioxide in the atmosphere maxed out at around 280 parts per million, but last year levels reached an astronomical 375 ppm. This huge increase has serious implications for the world as the CO2 creates an increase in gas particles that act as a blanket to keep solar radiation in and temperatures high.
Average winter temperatures in the Arctic have increased about 7 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 50 years, according to a recent intergovernmental study done by 300 scientists. In addition, the more violent and extreme weather associated with global warming costs billions of dollars in lost revenue, disaster relief and insurance claims. More extended periods of drought equals more agriculture failures, which in turn means food shortages ensue, and eventually many water sources dry up. Sea levels could rise as much as 7 meters in the next hundred years, effectively flooding some small islands. More people are dying from heat exposure in recent years (reminisce back to the killer heat waves in Europe last year). And this is just a little appetizer plate.
Here’s another reiteration. The United States produces 25 percent of all the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. That significant climatic changes are now occurring is also scientifically accepted. Still, we in the United States, fail to connect this impending disaster to our own actions and in the process, skirt our stewardship responsibility to our children and the rest of the world. As a moral issue, if you will, part of this lack of responsibility remains seeded deep within our history that distances our actions and us from our environment.
Our tales of origin emerge with our expulsion from a domesticated paradise in the Garden of Eden to a harsh, dark wild environment. And our very purpose on earth is to “have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth” (Genesis 1:26).
In addition, our scientific foundations are based on man’s ability “to establish and extend the power and the dominion of the human race itself over the universe” (Sir Francis Bacon). These cultural foundations of Western civilization smother any meaningful connection between our environment, pitting us against the “wild” in a dualistic relationship that intrinsically separates us from the environment and us. Man versus nature, good versus evil, civilized versus savage, progress versus wilderness. Even if you don’t adhere to these principles now, they are quite normal perceptions of the world.
In the United States, arguably more so than other countries, our history further tells us to consume, expand and disconnect ourselves from our actions in nature. Colonists voyaged across the ocean dreaming of the new opportunities and wealth that awaited them. America came to be the infamous Land of Opportunity. Americans, as a consequence, came to expect resources galore furnished by the land, as well a natural right to harvest and exploit these resources.
Combined with the aforesaid cultural traditions and the ability to literally expand west for much of our young history, Americans became fundamentally disconnected from the land and thus easily justified the right to expand, to take and to waste, because in the land of plentitude, their was always room for more.
Today this segregation between human beings and the repercussions our actions herald for the environment manifests in our government’s very definition of wilderness (according to the Federal Wilderness Act of 1964): “in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape … [wilderness is] an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”
As “visitors” of the environment, it is easy to forget that our actions have real consequences. With global climate change looming over us like a constant plague, we may want to begin rethinking how our actions and more expansion now will affect the world of the future. Some things, like a habitable world, may have a higher value than short-term gains of economic development.
Even if the federal government does not recognize the importance of international efforts to curb green house emissions, that does not mean we cannot take steps on a local level. Some states in the Northeast, as well as California, have taken an initiative in setting regulations on pollution. We can take this leadership initiative in Wisconsin as well.
Kate Flick (kflick@badgerherald.com) is junior majoring in sociology.
9 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
amen, sister.
Food For Thought
"We abuse the land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us.When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect."
~ Aldo Leopold
Aldo was wrong. When the land is owned by a community it is abused and destroyed. Tragedy of the commons and all. Prime example: The worst deforestation in the US takes place in public lands. Logging on public lands in inefficient and destructive because no one cares about the land because no one owns the land. Private loggers do a much better job.
Your entire paragraph on the disatrous consequences of global warming is junk science. While warming is certainly taking place the effects are unknown. It is best not to make serious arguments using pseudoscience.
The Kyoto treaty covers all current industrialized nations, but it ignores the two largest future producers, China and India. As such, it is worthless. Stifling development in the US would be an environmental disaster, as the longer it takes us to develop practical cleantech goods and services, the longer 2 billion people will be driving really dirty cars in the two largest nations on earth.
It is also worth noting that the only reason that Russia signed on is that they have accumulated pollution credits to sell to Western Europe. The primary action of the Kyoto treaty will be a large transfer of wealth from Western Europe to Russia. Greenhouse gases will remain largely unchanged. Also, good luck inspecting Russia for compliance.
to the last poster-You have misread Aldo's quote- it is true that when the land is OWNED by the community it will most likely suffer tragedy of the commons. However, Aldo is saying we shouldn't view ourselves as owners of the land, but instead as a member of the natural community.
The main point of this article, as I see it, is not to claim that global warming is necessarily going to cause huge global catastrophe, but rather that the federal government (mostly the Bush administration) time and time again have not stepped up to the plate to keep our air and water clean.
And somebody should...
I always like how other countries are so gung ho about America hamstringing itself with ridiculous enviro regulations that they would never impose on themselves.
For once, how about Russia does something constructive and leads by example? I don't see why Americans have to foot the bill for everything that's wrong with this world.
Terrorism, AIDS, poverty, weapons proliferation, the environment, ethnic cleansing... the list goes on. If anything, Russia seems on the wrong side of almost all of these global issues.
Why make the United States the bad guy when it appears to be the only country that at least is trying to make things better?
Lots of oil in Alaska
First thing we need to do is cork all the volcanoes.
How would holding the united states accountable for the emissions it produces be 'making it the bad guy?' That argument is immature, actually it's an example of people behaving as Hardin predicts in his 'tragedy of the commons' article. It's the collective action problem: why should any individual, or in this case country, try if no one else it trying? WEll, because, like Kate said, it is better to try and maintain a habitable planet than to rish short-term economic loss. Another point to consider - investment in renewable energy would create jobs, weaken our dependence on foreign, terrorist controled oil, lower the cost of fuels, and be better for the environment. It's in everyone's best interest to be efficient, to not be wasteful, and to realize that the environmental crisis brought on will not effect any one country, it is humanity's responsibility to protect our future. When you look at our consumption of fossil fuels in terms of simple supply and demand, you can see that there is a limited supply of fossil fuels, there is only enough fuel in alaska for another 5-10yrs, and we will inevitably run out of it. Supply goes down, price goes up. Time to start looking for alternatives that meet our energy needs without devastating our home.