monumental presidential speech in favor of environmental progress in the United States calls for a post that tries to wrestle with the nuts and bolts of what such changes could mean. First, I'd like to say that I was at first generally impressed by Obama's speech on environmental policy and innovation, given at Georgetown University on June 25th. It's bold by U.S. standards and provocative in making sweeping generalizations about where our country should stand in the climate change world-stage. If you haven't had a chance to see the master speech-weaver in action, you can see his full speech below. It is worth a watch:
But what does his policy really say? Can a jumble of overarching feel-good directives be enough to push the U.S. into a modern stance on climate control and carbon emission standards? Well if you're curious about what the presidential executive actions are all about, you can read the 21 page action plan here. But let's be real, the way you'll actually read it is in an infographic. Everyone loves infographics.
Okay, so now you've educated yourself on the topic at hand and you've noticed that Obama set out three primary areas of impact:
- Cut Carbon Pollution in America
- Prepare the U.S. for Impacts of Climate Change
- Lead International Efforts to Address Global Climate Change and Prepare for its Impacts
Which are superb titles, really they are. His slightly punchy attitude toward the partisan nature of U.S. culture and global climate change is refreshing -- overtly overdue -- but a necessary dig at the GOP / Democratic deadlock about everything; much like siblings vying for attention.
Seriously, can we talk about how no other Western nation deems SCIENTIFIC assessments of climate change to be some terrible political battle? Am I crazy here? Global climate change, the "politically correct" version of "global warming," has been a widely studied issue since, arguably, the 1960s, when Silent Spring jump-started a new lens through which we look at environmental health, both for human exposure and environmental degradation. So how does an issue over 50 years in the making still give rise to arguments? [And don't give me the "...but the economy" smoke and mirrors, because the prevailing conservative idea of American economic resiliency and market equilibrium must hold true across all planes, not just the auto and oil industries, if it will continue to hold up idealistically.]
Tangential political quibbles aside, I am not sold on the core of Obama's speech, despite it's positive intentions. This is not with lack of due research and care in delineating such a statement, though. I've read the evaluations. I've seen the news casts. I've highlighted and fact-checked and compared mission statements between U.S. government organizations, and defined just what "renewable energy targets" that the so-called 35 states have in place. Essentially, I wanted to believe the genuine effort by the president and his undoubtedly massive teams of environmental, political, and public relation gurus. But I also did my homework and my analysis below voices my concerns.
My problem is this: the United States has only-child syndrome in a family of 20 kids. We pretend to be the best big-brother anyone has ever had, but we are fundamentally an only-child in all the worst ways. Let me explain:
1. Cut Carbon Pollution in America
Coming from an administration that openly admits to having "no federal standard in place to reduce carbon pollution," yeah, I think we can safely say that cutting down on some carbon pollution is a good idea. It's great to say that the U.S. will follow the bandwagon of other developed nations (and even some developing nations *ahem* Brazil), but to compare U.S. emissions to China -- the U.S. having roughly 2.32% the population of China (as of 6:14 p.m. today) -- is frankly, absurd.
And for that matter, where is the mention about the European Union's successful implementation of an emission trading system, including various degrees of cap and trade? The statement seems so nonabrasive: Cut carbon pollution in America. We can all agree on this, right? Sure, I can agree that on an almost archaic level, this general statement, like "be nice to others," is a net positive. But we don't live in a U.S.-centric world. Reason One why the U.S. has only-child syndrome: We are a uni-polar culture, absorbed in a multi-polar world order.
2. Prepare the U.S. for Impacts of Climate Change
You know what really pushes my buttons? When society doesn't push their administration's buttons! Case in point: solidifying U.S. infrastructure is a nice thing to do, but it cannot be a means to an end. Infrastructure improvements will likely make areas more secure, and afford better occupational and environmental health options for communities. It will not, however, decrease the imminent (yes, imminent) risk of weather system devastation and especially not negate the vulnerability of low-income or out-skirted communities. So bravo, U.S. "ambitious" climate action plan, on objective #2.
The current plans for U.S. climate change engagement invoke the same mentality and logic as the Cold War shelter-in-place "safety" videos issued by the U.S. government as a national placebo in case a nuclear holocaust ensued with the Soviet Union. [Fact: You will not survive a nuclear explosion by covering your head and neck in the fetal position.] The same concept applies here.
Imagine for a moment that instead of needing to mention "protecting the economy and our natural resources," our government, and the people who support it so wholeheartedly, established their impact goals around protecting under-served communities, developing immigration standards and bylaws for climate refugees, and educating the public on why rebuilding major cities below sea level is probabilistically detrimental to human life and national morale.
And don't think for a second that this is a problem externally affecting the United States. I'm sorry for the realism here, but incorporating more weather resilient concrete on coastal highways isn't exactly an "aggressive" environmental climate change solution. Right now citizens of the United States are forcibly on the move as we see our very first climate refugees appear closer to home than you might think. Reason Two why the U.S. has only-child syndrome: We never learned to share [ideas, capital, power] among our people.
3. Lead International Efforts to Address Global Climate Change and Prepare for its Impacts
There are sea surges in Bangladesh, thousands swept away in India, entire islands engulfed by an expanding ocean in Tuvalu (and this article is from 2001!); the estimates for climate refugees are staggering. The Sundance Film Festival spotlight, Climate Refugees (2010), centers on this very issue. The film outlines how the fight has turned from saving the planet to saving civilization entirely.
So when the U.S. government says they are finally ready to become global leaders in addressing climate change, I can hardly hide my surprise at seeing them so late to the party. This is not a matter of trusting science anymore, or building walls against immigrant influxes. This is something much bigger. If studying environmental science counts for anything, I have learned that nature will do whatever it takes to reach equilibrium. It's simple math. It's simple science. It's simply baffling, how long it has taken us to recognize this historically ingrained fact.
The methodology is not off-point in the plan Obama and his administration have rolled out for global cooperation regarding climate change. The problem that I hope is easily seen by voters is that Congress can't even recognize equality among U.S. citizens in it's hard-pressed national decisions. What makes anyone think that it will be different for climate change initiatives? There are members of Congress right now who still openly deny the existence of climate change at all. And what's more concerning is that these are elected officials.
Even if you can turn a blind eye to these blocks, there is still the buffer of international relations and power play to overcome. I'm not convinced that the "American way" is the best way to go here. I'm not convinced that there has been enough education to the American public on these issues. And I'm certainly not convinced that the same government who sat idol as countries like Germany reduced their reliance on carbon based fuels and boosted their use of renewable energy to 25% of the nation's reliance, is at all prepared to lead the global effort.
The key to Germany's success, and the key to most grassroots efforts, is ownership. Once citizens of Germany became both consumers and producers of sustainable and renewable energy sources, they were more willing to bear the costs of adjustment. By privatizing certain areas and allowing the invisible hand of market capitalism take hold, the emerging industry of renewables was able to blossom.
New Zealand has been forced to restructure not only their migration systems and laws, but also their economic and political systems, as small island nations in Oceania bear the first brunt force of shrinking land mass due to ocean expansion. Where was the U.S. leadership at Rio de Janeiro? Where was the Kyoto Protocol support? And perhaps most importantly, why isn't anyone in a position of power asking these questions [and following through on answers] instead of imposing an in-your-face demand for an instant rebound of the U.S. economy? Reason Three why the U.S. has only-child syndrome: We've always been told we're the best.
-- --
Concluding Thoughts:
Okay, let me step off my soap box for a moment. I'm not anti-American government. I'm not lost to the concept of large machines (like the U.S. government) needing time to process and disseminate decisions system wide. I'm not calling for an anarchist take over. I am preaching about the only-child syndrome of always self-evaluating as being "good enough" because comparison is lost.
Our nation needs to read globally (books, articles, analyses - Knowledge outside your backyard!) , learn systemically, think actively, and crave, yes, take pride in the privilege afforded to those living in this country, and crave something more for the future of climate change negation and solutions. It is passion that lights the way for innovation, not top-down "restructuring" or even executive orders. As with the German Energiewende (energy transition) to a sustainable economy shows, change comes with public ownership of the idea itself.
**Disclaimer about only-child syndrome: Not all only-children are affected, just as me being small does not mean I have Napoleonic-complex.
Tangential political quibbles aside, I am not sold on the core of Obama's speech, despite it's positive intentions. This is not with lack of due research and care in delineating such a statement, though. I've read the evaluations. I've seen the news casts. I've highlighted and fact-checked and compared mission statements between U.S. government organizations, and defined just what "renewable energy targets" that the so-called 35 states have in place. Essentially, I wanted to believe the genuine effort by the president and his undoubtedly massive teams of environmental, political, and public relation gurus. But I also did my homework and my analysis below voices my concerns.
My problem is this: the United States has only-child syndrome in a family of 20 kids. We pretend to be the best big-brother anyone has ever had, but we are fundamentally an only-child in all the worst ways. Let me explain:
1. Cut Carbon Pollution in America
Coming from an administration that openly admits to having "no federal standard in place to reduce carbon pollution," yeah, I think we can safely say that cutting down on some carbon pollution is a good idea. It's great to say that the U.S. will follow the bandwagon of other developed nations (and even some developing nations *ahem* Brazil), but to compare U.S. emissions to China -- the U.S. having roughly 2.32% the population of China (as of 6:14 p.m. today) -- is frankly, absurd.
And for that matter, where is the mention about the European Union's successful implementation of an emission trading system, including various degrees of cap and trade? The statement seems so nonabrasive: Cut carbon pollution in America. We can all agree on this, right? Sure, I can agree that on an almost archaic level, this general statement, like "be nice to others," is a net positive. But we don't live in a U.S.-centric world. Reason One why the U.S. has only-child syndrome: We are a uni-polar culture, absorbed in a multi-polar world order.
2. Prepare the U.S. for Impacts of Climate Change
You know what really pushes my buttons? When society doesn't push their administration's buttons! Case in point: solidifying U.S. infrastructure is a nice thing to do, but it cannot be a means to an end. Infrastructure improvements will likely make areas more secure, and afford better occupational and environmental health options for communities. It will not, however, decrease the imminent (yes, imminent) risk of weather system devastation and especially not negate the vulnerability of low-income or out-skirted communities. So bravo, U.S. "ambitious" climate action plan, on objective #2.
The current plans for U.S. climate change engagement invoke the same mentality and logic as the Cold War shelter-in-place "safety" videos issued by the U.S. government as a national placebo in case a nuclear holocaust ensued with the Soviet Union. [Fact: You will not survive a nuclear explosion by covering your head and neck in the fetal position.] The same concept applies here.
Imagine for a moment that instead of needing to mention "protecting the economy and our natural resources," our government, and the people who support it so wholeheartedly, established their impact goals around protecting under-served communities, developing immigration standards and bylaws for climate refugees, and educating the public on why rebuilding major cities below sea level is probabilistically detrimental to human life and national morale.
And don't think for a second that this is a problem externally affecting the United States. I'm sorry for the realism here, but incorporating more weather resilient concrete on coastal highways isn't exactly an "aggressive" environmental climate change solution. Right now citizens of the United States are forcibly on the move as we see our very first climate refugees appear closer to home than you might think. Reason Two why the U.S. has only-child syndrome: We never learned to share [ideas, capital, power] among our people.
3. Lead International Efforts to Address Global Climate Change and Prepare for its Impacts
There are sea surges in Bangladesh, thousands swept away in India, entire islands engulfed by an expanding ocean in Tuvalu (and this article is from 2001!); the estimates for climate refugees are staggering. The Sundance Film Festival spotlight, Climate Refugees (2010), centers on this very issue. The film outlines how the fight has turned from saving the planet to saving civilization entirely.
So when the U.S. government says they are finally ready to become global leaders in addressing climate change, I can hardly hide my surprise at seeing them so late to the party. This is not a matter of trusting science anymore, or building walls against immigrant influxes. This is something much bigger. If studying environmental science counts for anything, I have learned that nature will do whatever it takes to reach equilibrium. It's simple math. It's simple science. It's simply baffling, how long it has taken us to recognize this historically ingrained fact.
The methodology is not off-point in the plan Obama and his administration have rolled out for global cooperation regarding climate change. The problem that I hope is easily seen by voters is that Congress can't even recognize equality among U.S. citizens in it's hard-pressed national decisions. What makes anyone think that it will be different for climate change initiatives? There are members of Congress right now who still openly deny the existence of climate change at all. And what's more concerning is that these are elected officials.
Even if you can turn a blind eye to these blocks, there is still the buffer of international relations and power play to overcome. I'm not convinced that the "American way" is the best way to go here. I'm not convinced that there has been enough education to the American public on these issues. And I'm certainly not convinced that the same government who sat idol as countries like Germany reduced their reliance on carbon based fuels and boosted their use of renewable energy to 25% of the nation's reliance, is at all prepared to lead the global effort.
The key to Germany's success, and the key to most grassroots efforts, is ownership. Once citizens of Germany became both consumers and producers of sustainable and renewable energy sources, they were more willing to bear the costs of adjustment. By privatizing certain areas and allowing the invisible hand of market capitalism take hold, the emerging industry of renewables was able to blossom.
New Zealand has been forced to restructure not only their migration systems and laws, but also their economic and political systems, as small island nations in Oceania bear the first brunt force of shrinking land mass due to ocean expansion. Where was the U.S. leadership at Rio de Janeiro? Where was the Kyoto Protocol support? And perhaps most importantly, why isn't anyone in a position of power asking these questions [and following through on answers] instead of imposing an in-your-face demand for an instant rebound of the U.S. economy? Reason Three why the U.S. has only-child syndrome: We've always been told we're the best.
-- --
Concluding Thoughts:
Okay, let me step off my soap box for a moment. I'm not anti-American government. I'm not lost to the concept of large machines (like the U.S. government) needing time to process and disseminate decisions system wide. I'm not calling for an anarchist take over. I am preaching about the only-child syndrome of always self-evaluating as being "good enough" because comparison is lost.
Our nation needs to read globally (books, articles, analyses - Knowledge outside your backyard!) , learn systemically, think actively, and crave, yes, take pride in the privilege afforded to those living in this country, and crave something more for the future of climate change negation and solutions. It is passion that lights the way for innovation, not top-down "restructuring" or even executive orders. As with the German Energiewende (energy transition) to a sustainable economy shows, change comes with public ownership of the idea itself.
**Disclaimer about only-child syndrome: Not all only-children are affected, just as me being small does not mean I have Napoleonic-complex.
