The position of those who are opposed to increased U.S. involvement in efforts to combat global warming is summarized by the Bush administration’s platform as it is articulated in the Taking Sidestext. This section begins with the president stating that “[a]ddressing global climate change will require…effort over many generations” (p. 160), accompanied by his assertion that economic concerns take priority over environmental crises, as he believes that the former will solve the latter. Such a position is one of incremental involvement, with the U.S. becoming more engaged in the fight against global warming as new technologies become available and as scientific knowledge is expanded. This position is also characterized by its focus on legislation developed over a longitudinal period, rather than immediate and pragmatic interventions. Rather than rush to respond to doomsday cries about global warming, the position against increased U.S. responsibility calls for periodic evaluations of the condition of global warming. “If, in 2012, we find that we are not on track toward meeting our goal, and sound science justifies further policy action, the United States will respond….” (p. 161).

While the president and his administration are correct to argue that any interventions to address the problem of global warming will need to be sustained over many generations, the fact of the matter is that the answer to the question, “Should the U.S. be doing more to combat global warming?,” lies in the gray space between the debates offered by the two camps. This should not surprise us, as the most viable solutions and strategies for any needed social change never lie on the extreme poles of opposition, but in a compromise position somewhere between the two. In the case of global warming, the United States must accept a greater degree of responsibility for the climate change problem.

Quite simply, we do use more energy than any other country in the world, and for that reason alone, we have a moral and social obligation to attempt to correct the damage that our actions have caused. Yes, part of the effort to correct such damage will be policy-based, as the president stated, as well as legislative in nature. However, if the United States is to increase its involvement against global warming, and to so in a meaningful way that has a true impact, at least part of our efforts must be devoted to changing consumption habits and patterns, both at the individual and national level, and to do so as soon as possible. If scientists are correct in their predictions that global warming has already caused significant environmental damage and will continue to do so at unprecedented rates, the United States cannot wait until 2012 to decide whether action is “justified.” By 2012, any efforts to combat global warming will be too little, too late.

Even if our use was not as disproportionate as it is, our country does have unique technological, economic, political, and human resources that would put us in the position to make a significant positive contribution to the fight against global warming. Why are we hesitant to share the riches of our knowledge and our technologies in the service of efforts that will have direct consequences for every living being, if not in our own generation, then the next? The position taken up by the president and his administration sets a negative and dangerous precedent, not only for Americans, but for other countries that look to the United States to set the standard for engagement and involvement in world affairs. Scientists around the world have already substantiated observational claims that climate change is accelerating at an unanticipated rate, possibly contributing to many of the extreme weather events that we have witnessed as recently as this week with the floods in England (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007).

Based on current data, scientists and climate change experts predict that global warming will continue worsen at an alarming pace if the inhabitants of the world do not cooperate and apply concentrated efforts to prevent the problem from worsening (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007). Although it is impossible for us to undo the damage that we have already caused to the ecosystems of all species, including our own, we do have the power to prevent the problem from becoming more severe and acute (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007). For these reasons, the United States, as one of the world’s most powerful nations, should take the lead in bringing countries together to work on viable policy and practice strategies that are intended to combat global warming. Such strategies will require serious commitments on the part of governments and their citizens to change ingrained habits, but the return on the investment represents nothing less than the health and safety of our own species, as well as the other living inhabitants of this planet.

Other essays and articles in the Arguments and Random Archives related to this topic include : An Argument Against Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)  •   Wetlands : The Ecological Effect of Loss

References

Elliott, D. (2003). Energy, society, and the environment: Technology for a sustainable future. New York: Routledge.

Johnansen, B.E. (2002). The global warming desk reference. Westport, CT: Greenwood

Press.  UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate change 2007: A report.Retrieved on July 24, 2007 from http://www.ipcc.ch/.