Almost every week when Congress is in session, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., takes the floor to talk about one of the defining issues of our generation: climate change. On Feb. 27, standing in front of a sign that read “Time to Wake Up,” Whitehouse implored the Obama Administration to uphold its commitment to combat future climate change
We applaud Whitehouse’s tireless campaign to inspire the federal government to respond to our effect on the environment. But Congress has not followed his lead. And instead, clashing interests and a misguided debate over the global warming’s existence have derailed the possibility of substantively discussing and combating climate change.
Tens of thousands marched in a Feb. 17 rally demanding action on climate change in Washington, D.C. International pledges, such as the Kyoto Protocol, set global goals for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and countries like India and Australia have individually implemented carbon taxes. But at the same time the United States has infamously continued to disassociate itself from the Kyoto Protocol and seems to abhor the very idea of a carbon tax.
Rather, the biggest political issue for American environmentalists now is the proposed Keystone Pipeline. The pipeline exemplifies the interrelated and contradictory concerns of energy independence and climate change. President Obama’s recent inaugural address — hallmarked as boldly liberal — communicated an ambiguous stance on energy. The Keystone Pipeline is a golden opportunity to refine large reserves at home and create jobs. But a large commitment to unclean oil sources betrays the promise of a sustainable future.
There is also hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for natural gas, which has been a boon to the domestic energy industry in states like Texas, North Dakota and Pennsylvania. The influx of natural gas has helped drive down cost while simultaneously allowing the United States to lessen dependence on imported energy sources. Environmental lobbyists have doggedly fought fracking in states like New York and California. Both the pipeline and fracking have significant implications for the energy lobby, environmental lobby, labor unions and even foreign policy.
Another challenge to responding to environmental issues is the debate over the validity and definition of climate change. The formidable anti-environmental lobby has stalled progress, continuing to dismiss empirical data that supports theories of global climate change. This backlash labels the “hysteria” over inconclusive sources as an attack on the middle class and American capitalism. There has been a steep drop in the number of Americans that believed the continued burning of fossil fuels would cause climate change in the past decade — a drop, according to the Nation, directly attributable to a rejection of scientific consensus by many Republicans, especially Tea Party members.
This debate has sparked hostility in our politics despite its complete uselessness. Each side has argued with vigor in an attempt to convince the populace about the existence of gargantuan scale shifts in temperature, the increased occurrence of extreme-weather events and the threat to our shores and farms. But by blaming scientists for false data and a political agenda, the anti-environmental lobby has shifted the focus to proving an abstract global issue rather than taking practical action to lessen the harm done by our industries and our use of vehicles and housing. We need to wake up to the realities of our effects on the environment. And our nation’s policies need to reflect these realities.
Editorials are written by The Herald’s editorial page board: its editor, Dan Jeon, and its members, Mintaka Angell, Samuel Choi, Nicholas Morley and Rachel Occhiogrosso. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
