Nigel Purvis: By trying to impose unrealistic obligations on the US, Europe risks undermining international progress on global warming | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
The best reason for the US to act quickly is that the US is likely to be among the most effected nations.
Here in the UK, unless the Gulf Stream is turned off, we seem to be among the best possible places to live in a warmed globe. It's true we may lose some of the South-East (tant pis) but overall as an Island nation, we will be able to feed ourselves, keep out others looking for the life boat, and still be OK.
The United States, in contrast, has spent the past 60 years moving it's population to the areas of it's landmass least likely to cope with dramatic climate change. Virtually the entire eastern sea-board is threatened, not to mention the water depleted South West. If logic was behind policy the US would be busy trying to pull people back to Michigan, Penn, Ohio, and other nice, wet, hurricane-proof areas, where, with little difficulty it could provide all its needs.
Instead, it keeps diverting water from the Colorado to grow needless crops in California and the Southwest.
1 comment:
Setting the bar high is a very good strategy. It worked in Europe, according to the Kyoto protocol all the European countries had to reduce their emissions to unbelievable levels and yet everyone signed it and tried, nobody succeeded of course because the bar was set really really high but they tried and achieved the best results possible. If the expectations were to be low then not much would be done. The US need to act quickly and not argue with how much they want or don't want to do to prevent a catastrophe. It's better to set the bar too high and get very close to it at the end than set it low and give up after reaching it.
Take care, Lorne
Post a Comment