Lin is a second-year biochemistry student.
By Annie Lin
As you probably already know, international relations have been
incredibly strained lately. The United States was not only recently
voted off the U.N. Human Rights Commission, but it also lost its
seat on the International Narcotics Control Board. The United
States played key roles in the establishment of these two boards,
and being voted off is nothing short of humiliation.
Even “friends” of the United States voted it off,
and one must wonder, with all that is going on, if these so-called
“friends” will remain this way for long. With the
losses the United States faces, it makes you wonder whether or not
Washington regrets any of its recent policy decisions; but in any
case, it certainly is paying the price.
Washington’s first decision was to pull the United States
out of the Kyoto Protocol ““ a worldwide plan to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. President Bush broke his campaign
promise, the first of many, after two months in office, stating
that the U.S. economy is of utmost importance and therefore cannot
partake in the treaty.
 Illustration by ZACH LOPEZ/Daily Bruin But what people
fail to realize is that greenhouse gas regulation and overall
resource conservation will not hurt the economy. President Bush
questions the validity of the global warming process, despite
scientific models and evidence.
What makes his economic models any more infallible? Evidence
from the past 10 years concurs with scientific predictions, and
global warming as in issue holds much more credibility. If only the
economy were so easy to predict.
The Kyoto Protocol requests that 39 industrialized nations cut
the emissions of six different greenhouse gases. It does not
include developing countries, which is understandable. But it makes
the U.S. position even more embarrassing.
The United States makes up only 4 percent of the world’s
population, yet somehow it emits 25 percent of the world’s
greenhouse gases. It is infuriating that President Bush will not
take responsibility for the country and its effect on the
world.
Even Romania, which emits only 1.2 percent of the world’s
greenhouse gases, was the first to ratify and enforce the
agreement. And we, as U.S. citizens, are expected to believe the
failure to regulate is for the good of our country?
Perhaps it is not fully understood that global warming is just
that: a global issue. It affects all economic classes, all
industries and all nations. Global warming changes the environment
and climate, resulting in warmer temperatures that are ideal for
disease-carrying organisms and more
violent weather.
In addition, these changes will result in the devastation of
many species and habitats, causing a great disturbance in the
natural balance of ecosystems.
As such a prominent country, it is appalling that the United
States is not working with the rest of the world to protect the
planet and its health. Instead of worrying about meeting the high
energy demand, perhaps the Bush Administration should focus on
reducing that demand.
Vice President Dick Cheney contends that a new power plant needs
to be built each week for the next 20 years to meet the current
energy demands, totaling 1,300 by the year 2020. And this is coming
from the current CEO of Halliburton, the largest oil drilling and
fuel-exploration services provider in the world. Certainly, he is
not the best representative to be in charge of our energy
situation.
Scientists at five of our national laboratories, after three
years of research, show that with a governmental efficiency
program, the energy demand as well as its cost will decrease
dramatically.
Of course one would immediately assume that these proposed
measures are either expensive, impractical or both.
But, some measures are neither. They are as simple and cheap as
a conservation light bulb, and as effective as new heating systems.
In fact, our president has one installed in his Texan ranch. With
these alternatives, does our situation really deserve
“crisis” status?
The choice is simple: build 1,300 new power plants or reduce
consumer demand by almost half. But it’s not that simple for
our government. Not only were we pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol,
we will also contribute more to the problem ““ much more than
a fourth of the world’s emissions.
Maybe it is about time our country takes responsibility ““
or at least the government ““ take responsibility for its
actions. The federal government is one of the largest energy users
in the United States.
Instead of deregulating environmental standards, instead of
finding new places to drill for oil, instead of disregarding a
common global view, perhaps it is wise for us and for future
generations to lessen the effects of global warming since we have
contributed enough in the cause.
President Bush has chosen his stance ““ a lack of concern
for the world, as well as for our country’s well being. That
does not mean, however, that we need individually to fail to take
responsibility for our actions.
We, as a society, need to make a more conscious effort. Global
warming directly affects us, and we are obliged to ourselves and
the world to help diminish that effect.
I am not asking you to chain yourself to a building or to walk
five miles instead of drive ““ I am asking you to take an
active role in protecting the earth. But if you are unwilling to
take political action, I strongly urge you to make some sort of
economic effort.
I am not asking for a complete change of lifestyle, but
honestly, how difficult is turning off the lights when you leave a
room?
Remember this: “Conservation may be a sign of personal
virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for sound, comprehensive
energy policy,” as quoted by Vice President Dick Cheney in
the New York Times.
Well, I guess that is just one more virtue he lacks. With this
quote, your two options lie before you ““ the choice is
yours.