Tom Kando
I wrote this a while back, when anti-Americanism was still more virulent that it is now, since Obama took over the presidency.
But it is still fashionable to blame America for being the world’s greatest polluter, for making a greater contribution to global warming than any other country, and for our weak environmental consciousness. Now, don’t misunderstand me: I am acutely aware of the environmental catastrophe which faces our planet. I just finished reading Jared Diamond’s Collapse, and I am afraid that he is right: the world is in deep ecological trouble. I am an environmentalist through and through, and I feel that the world must radically alter (= reduce) its consumption and reproduction patterns, or else we will soon experience the fate of the dinosaurs.
The only thing to which I object is the perennial tendency to single out the US as exceptionally guilty of destroying the planet.
For example, take our failure to ratify the 1997 Kyoto Treaty. We have been terribly vilified for this, and presumably our stance will soon change now that Obama has replaced Bush. Fine. But it is rarely noted that we were by no means alone in refusing to ratify Kyoto (Australia and several others did likewise), and that our refusal was based - some might say reasonably - on exemptions from Kyoto requirements granted to China and other “developing” economies - even though they already pollute and warm up the planet more than we do.
In an excellent article reprinted in McGraw-Hill’s 2007-2008 Sociology Annual Edition, Lester Brown points out that in ABSOLUTE AMOUNTS, China has in many ways overtaken the US, consuming more raw materials and energy than we do in many areas. Only in oil consumption are we still ahead. Otherwise, in coal, steel production, grain consumption, paper, and in most other respects China is now ahead of us - as it is in overall CO-2 emissions and in general pollution.
But the blame-America crowd then retorts that on a per capital basis we are still far “guiltier.” After all, China has four times our population, so they should be allowed to pollute more.
Besides, they add, what moral right does the affluent West have, to prevent China and other rising societies from achieving the same standard of living as we enjoy? Isn’t this a case of “do as I say, not as I did”? I don’t know about morality, but I am certain that if 1.3 billion Chinese (plus 1 billion Indians, plus Indonesia, Brazil and the rest of the “rising” world) reach the West’s per capita level of consumption, humanity will simply die.
But back to the US role: Much as anti-Americans would like to overlook this, our country does NOT have the highest per capital energy consumption either. Canada is ahead of us, and so are some of the very affluent small Middle Eastern States - I forget which, some Gulf States such as Qatar maybe, Kuwait perhaps. And some small and very rich European countries may be vying with us in this regard as well. Sweden or Norway perhaps. Of course, the reason for Canada, Scandinavia and some Gulf States’ very high energy consumption is their climate. The former need to warm themselves a lot for much of the year, and in the Middle East they need to cool themselves down year around.
But my point is this: The anti-Americans want to hold America responsible BOTH ways: 1) if they can’t blame America for being the world’s Number One polluter in absolute terms, they say, “Oh, well, on a per capital basis we are still the worst,” an 2) if some other countries have a higher per capita energy consumption than we do, then the America-blamers turn around and say, “oh well, don’t worry so much about Canada, it doesn’t have as many people as America does, so their collective contribution to pollution isn’t as bad.
So America gets it both ways, when in fact it is (1) neither the world’s largest polluter in absolute terms, (2) nor so on a per-capita basis.
Anyway, now that I got this off my chest, let’s all get back to saving the planet. This is a problem for which all countries are responsible and a responsibility from which no country should be exempt.leave comment here
7 comments:
Tom,
It's very easy for ME to see why America gets so much criticism about this. First of all, we have been the leader in 'developing' the rest of the world (read: using natural and human resources for short-term profits, despite its price to the environment). Have you read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman?" This book explains, from the inside, how our wonderful 'loans' put other nations in debt they can't ever repay, thereby gaining control over them, all the while encouraging them to abandon their indigenous agricultural practices. Also, let's stick to the facts. In CO2 emissions, China has only very recently taken first place at 6,018 million tons. Don't forget: we held first place for a long, long time. And we still hold a very CLOSE 2nd place with over 5,903 million tons. Russia is in 3rd place, but it's a very DISTANT one with only 1,704. (I wish you would back up your general assertions with facts or citations because otherwise they can be misleading; my figures are from the Independent/UK; you can Google it.) Also, it's not just that northern countries require more heat, like Scandanavia, but HOW they choose to heat their homes that makes the difference. In Iceland and Finland, it's typical to use geo-thermal, which unfortunately hasn't taken hold yet in the U.S. Furthermore, until Obama's election, thanks to Bush, our position on the environment vis a vis the rest of the industrialized nations was sheer embarassment. Bush certainly had the short-term profits of corporations in mind, not the longevity or well-being of humanity. Don't even try to defend it! The U.S., until this year, has failed miserably on its environmental scorecard when compared to other nations in the G-8, and compared to where it should have been as a world leader. Why don't you hold high standards for America, and expect us to set an example if we are "the wealthiest nation on earth?" Shouldn't we bear more responsibility if we enjoy a higher standard of living?
Tom, This is a complex issue because the idea of sustainable development is not addressed either by those motivated by corporate greed or environmental purism. Neither of these groups place at center stage "sustainable development."
Social institutions, whether corporations, or governments do not have sustainable development at heart. Corporations and human beings trying to earn a living and feed themselves are by nature giving primacy to their profits or their stomachs.
Governments, on the other hand, are anti-development in principle because they are bureaucracies and therefore regulatory or redistributionist rather than producers. They have been a battleground between the corporate lobbyists and the environmental purists. As with other legislation in Washington, the product is usually a victory of one extreme over the other or a highly unsatisfactory and economically wasteful compromise between the two. It seldom reflects a common-sense view--on this issue "sustainable development."
Human society, to exist long-term, needs sustainable development. However, I don't think you can get the U.S. to produce common-sense legislation without legislative reform that would provide more genuine citizen input and less lobby power. I get into the sort of reforms needed in my forthcoming book: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, Version 4.0 that will be out in September.
Gordon
It sometimes annoys me that the emphasis on the European American Blog is predominantly about defending America’s alleged bad reputation. By doing so I feel that:
1. America’s reputation becomes worse. For people like me for example , who had never given America’s reputation a second thought, such defensive articles make me think: “Oh really? Has America got such a bad reputation? Oh, all right then, and I now believe that America has a bad reputation, whereas before, I was not of that opinion.
2. The real problems get overlooked. The problem is no longer say: Western Industrialisation has turned out a farce, what are we going to do about it? The problem discussed instead becomes: Western Industrialisation has turned out a farce, whose fault is it?
Modern psychology teaches that blaming someone for problems does not solve them.
Some Americans build eco friendly homes
Some Europeans build eco friendly homes
Some Chinese etc….
What is the use of per capita statistics as to whose fault things are?
“Ah! “ I hear you say “but someone has to take responsibility and pay the price!”
Pay the price of what, of solving the problem? The money cancer is at work again. Most real problems in the world are NOT financial but ideological.
It does not cost any money to reduce consumption, on the contrary.
“…if Brazil and the rest of the “rising” world) reaches the West’s per capita level of consumption, humanity will simply die.”
Yes perhaps die of obesity like the rest of us.
For me, the only thing I can do personally to reduce consumption is to start at No.1 yours truly.
The world population is made up of many individuals many of which can think for themselves, given the massive amount of data available.
That is why I don’t like politics. It ignores all the good people out here who had something else in mind for a career than squabbling about statistics.
Who are all those “Anti Americans” anyway? I don´t know any, never met one.
I just wish the emphasis on the blog would shift from blame to possible solutions.
Hi Tom - May I assume the word "fashionable" to criticize America refers to either the far left academic elite or, the secular elite opinion makers? I view myself as a secular opinion maker, but not an elite. I try to base my opinions on the best information I have the time for, &, in the case of global warming, my opinion is based on what I believe most scientists have said on the topic. Having said that, I know that "scientific fact" can mean different things based upon which scientist makes the judgment, based on their own particular belief system/bias.
I have watched my CD by Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" several times. I've read the Natural Resources Defense Council views on Global warming as well as Scientific American "Future of Energy". Being married to an environmental engineer, who is still active in the "field" at age 67, I can't avoid his opinions on this critically important subject. We are trying everything we can do to reduce our own environmental footprints.
Is the US the biggest global polluter? I would say yes, so far, based on our past heavy consumption of oil & coal burning power plants...China & India are not far behind. Coal burning is the worse polluter & automobiles are the second worse. We have, in our past, been producing acid rain faster than any other country. Fortunately, or, unfortunately, depending upon how close you are to the source, acid rain tends to hang quite locally. Acid rain contains lots of soot & mercury as well as other dangerous contaminants.
I agree with Jan Q regarding our short term business strategies based only upon profit. It happens. We have much company in greed. I do think we are more possibility thinking & aggressive about getting to where we believe we can be in the shortest possible time...like our lifetime.
I hope & believe our consumption of oil will go down in the next decade because of 1)waking up to the energy crisis and, 2)because the supply of conventional oil will be unable to keep up with the world demand.
Enuf said for now.
Becky
Apple Valley, MN
Several comments, right away. Good. A joint response to you all:
Juliette: See Jan’s comment, and tell me again that people are not in the blame-America business.
As to the blog, yes, a significant part of it is in defense of America. An equal part is in defense of Europe. It’s called the European-American Blog, and its primary mission is to dispel each side’s prejudices against the other.
It is your right to dislike politics, but that happens to be the subject in which I majored (Politieke en Sociale Faculteit) as well the main subject of this blog. I can no more respond to your dislike of politics than you could respond to me, if I said that I dislike ballet.
As to saving the environment, in case you missed it: I conclude that we are all in this together.
Gordon and Becky: Many good points. I agree with most of them.
Jan: See my response to Juliette, above. And by the way, Americans are by no means the richest people in the world. This is another myth which needs to be debunked.
General: There is no doubt that the US is one - but only one - of the world’s major polluters. We could continue to quibble. For example, America relies far less on nuclear energy than France, Japan and some others. Also, to say that we have been the worst polluters in the past is a bit like saying that Germans were the worst Nazis in the past.
I already admitted in my post that it doesn’t matter who is the number one, two or three polluter. We are all in this together. My main motive for writing this post was to encourage people to move away from the knee-jerk tendency to attribute way too much power to America - for good or evil. This megalomania is shared by both the extreme right and the extreme left. On the right, they believe that it is in America’s power to save the world. On the left, they feel that America is the world’s greatest destructive force. Were we to believe Hollywood, the all-seeing, all-knowing CIA is responsible for every coup in the world. In fact, that agency is utterly inept. The truth is, our country bungles from one problem to the next, like everyone else. We are flawed, our power for good and bad is limited. We do our best. Sometimes we succeed, often we fail. We are neither Satan America nor God’s Own Country. There is no American exceptionalism. But enough said.
Editorial comment: I am a centrist. Sometimes I am on the moderate right, often on the reasonable left, depending on the issue. As a result, my conservative friends tell me that I am a Socialist (God forbid!) And my left-wing friends see me as reactionary. Whatever. I am a strong believer in balance. Hence, I sometimes see merit in a position associated with the “Left,” sometimes with the “Right,” and I always worry when a discussion or a platform (e.g. this blog) becomes dominated by extremism of one side or the other.
Tom,
I'm disappointed in your response to my post. Initially, you challenged us into an argument or at least discussion, but then when I take the time to respond thoughtfully, backing up my assertions with fact, you simply provide one dismissive "write-off" of me to Juliette: that I'm "into the blame America business." Not only do I find this rather insulting, but it's simply not true. There's a world of difference between simply "blaming" versus taking responsibility, and taking action. I believe that democracy is not a spectator sport, and that each one of us needs to raise our voice, minimize our footprint, call our Representatives regularly, know our neighbors, and give freely of our time and energy to our communities in order to make our democracy work. It doesn't work on its own, evidently.
If I simply wanted to complain about America, why would I be the Director of Operations of a non-profit that promotes sustainability here in our rural county in NY State? It's pretty low pay and very long hours. I try to live sustainably, because like Juliette says, we can only control our own behavior. I have owned and managed an organic grain farm here for decades, a commitment which also means I remain financially marginal -- but content with the lifestyle I have chosen. I also give lots of my time as a volunteer activist, showing free documentaries, like Al Gore's film, at the local fire hall, where I find myself in interesting dialogue with farmers, laborers, professionals, Republican, Democrats and Independents. Contrary to your implication, I am receptive to others' opinions and I am certainly not into the 'blame America business.' That would mean I'd be profiting from blaming America. Quite the contrary. I think you fail to see the difference between blaming and truly taking personal responsibility, with every choice we make, including every purchase, or better yet, choosing not to purchase whenever possible.
I agree with Gordon, Juliette and Becky. We all need to focus on the solutions. But the first step towards that end is identify the problem and OWN UP to it.
Regardless of difference of opinions between us, do you think I should feel motivated to reply to you next time if you respond to my post in such a dismissive way? A little R.E.S.P.E.C.T. on your part would be more effective at increasing participation.
Jan:
It wouldn’t be useful for us to debate facts, because for one thing, you and I are both sufficiently informed about them and probably agree about most of them. Also, I simply cannot possibly respond to all details in every comment I receive. I am on your side as regards the environment, both in thoughts and in actions. Basically everyone involved in this exchange agrees that protecting the environment and sustainable development are important. But we differ on how we view the world. We have different outlooks. This is a free country and we are all entitled to our thoughts. Enough said.
I think you should start your own blog on the environment. With your organic farm, you already have a lot of knowledge and experience
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!