In the past the US has been acting like a spoiled child let loose in a candy store.
The Bush administrations and the Clinton administration have not nurtured green technological energy alternatives sufficiently. Instead these administrations have acted like parents who periodically mention vegetables are good for you, but take you to the candy store every day.
The anarchy amongst states and lack of a more forceful parental influence from the United Nations on the international stage has caused many states like the US to horde oil without investing in greener
fuels. The United States along with the rest of the world is realizing that they need a more diverse diet of energy resources that are renewable and have fewer environmental side effects. However, the United States solutions to these ‘candy shortages’ and ‘tummy aches’ have been shortsighted.
Make candy healthy?
The US has often viewed climate change through a technological lens, which the Parker-Blodgett CRS Report for Congress describes as a belief that reducing green house gas emissions can be done by replacing inappropriate and misused technologies (the cause of the problem). It is true technological advances have been especially important for reducing emissions through advances in efficiencies of appliances (as was suggested in the Great Man Theory and TechnEgologic blogs) and industrial equipment. However, we cannot rely on large scale technological advances to rescue civilization from the consequences of the buildup of copious quantities of green house gases in the atmosphere, because these changes have already set into motion world-wide climactic and ecological shifts. It is too great a risk to rely on technological breakthroughs to come to the rescue when there is no certainty that they will be able to effectively counteract green house gas emissions. Physical or financial limitations need to be accounted for. Often technological solutions can also have unknown ecological consequences, as was the case with ocean iron fertilization experiments. This technological ‘solution’ has limited application due to biological limitations at a large scale as well as ecological side effects like deep water anoxia and potentially causing harmful red tides
Can you bribe a kid to eat veggies?
The US also views climate change through an economic lens. Parker-Blodgett suggest that it is a view that the problem of excess green house gas emissions is caused by improperly managed market signals and the solution to the problem is correcting market signals to incentivize reductions in green house gas emissions. Internalizing environmental externalities can be done through two main ways. One is through a cap and trade systems, which has been used in US energy markets with sulfur dioxide. However, having the government set emissions limit does not necessarily prevent excess pollution. Just like if you ration out candies for kids in a candy store you need to keep a close watch otherwise kids will take more if they think you are not looking. Another tactic is applying a carbon tax, which has been adopted in Europe. This has the potential to provide the right economic market signals if the tax level is neither too weak nor economically debilitating. The European Union has started using a carbon tax, which will hopefully encourage the US to follow suit. Considering the veracious sweet tooth of the US, the potential success is limited if you charge high prices for candy, but don’t grow vegetables.
Candy is no substitute for green veggies.
As Oliver Tickell arg
ues in Kyoto2: How to Manage the Global Greenhouse, historical green house gas levels have already committed humanity to adapt to a world with warmer and more violent climate. Even adopting the best technological and economic solutions need to be supplemented by more systematic changes.
This calls for a paradigm shift regarding US international policy that combines technological, economic, and ecological lenses in order to effectively assuage cooperative international action on climate change. The ecological lens is defined by Parker-Blodgett as disregard for nature, where change requires: people to act respectfully through their consumer choices, environmentally friendly businesses to receive financial support, and environmental regulations. Children need to learn veggies would taste as sweet as candy if they can look beyond a moment’s sugar craving. The US needs systematic changes in many areas of society such as adopting a mass transit system (like Europe’s), public commitment to lifestyle changes, etc. Ultimately, the Obama administration needs to take a more active role in climate change discussions in Kyoto 2. The US perspective needs to diversify the range of lenses it uses to view climate change. Ultimately, to assuage change in the US, consumer and business decisions need to take into account environmental damage caused by extraction, production, usage, and disposal of societal and consumer products by internalizing these externalities within the costs, which is described in The Story of Stuff.
Tags: climate change, ecological lens, fossil fuel addiction, paradigm shift, Philip Rothrock, US Energy Policy
