Sunday, March 2, 2008
Politics and Science "New US Climate offer too little"
America is paving the way for reducing global warming and radical climate changes, as well as proposing more innovative ideas and measures to carry out the process. Almost all the time issues such as these are extremely intertwined with the policies of the Government, as well as the international community. But what goals are communicated to the global community and what goals are actually pursued and accomplished? Unfortunately the number of goals communicated far exceeds the number of goals that are actually accomplished. This article I read on the BBC website, an international source/perspective about the policies of United States and its role in alleviating global warming sheds a far different light on the issue. There seems to be an inconsensus with the leaders of the European Union, and President Bush in the White House on the issues of achieving a sustainable Earth. One EU official even stated that "the US was becoming much smarter in its presentation of climate change policy, emphasising what it was prepared to do rather than what it would refuse to do." My question is how is the United States going to lead a global community to alleviate the problems of global warming and to build a sustainable environment when America herself fails to build better communication ties, and fails to follow up with the goals she sets out to accomplish?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This article makes evident how disinclined our current administration is towards ‘setting dates.’ Rather than allying with most other developed nations who signed the Kyoto Protocol, the United States remains steadfast in avoiding such an agreement. Instead of altering the United State’s position regarding climate change and resource uses immediately, this article stresses that we now have a plan for 2050… a distant date, which some climatologists suggest will be too late to undo extensive damage. I think this article shows just how embedded scientific issues are in political aims. Rather than heeding the advice of experts in this area and supporting the efforts made internationally, the United States continues to forge it’s own path to uncertainty.
As the original poster said, I think the most interesting (and relevant-to-class-discussion) point is the EU official's comment that the United States is "becoming much smarter in its presentation of climate change policy, emphasising what it was prepared to do rather than what it would refuse to do." The United States, especially the Bush administration, is notorious for dragging its feet on adhering to global environmental policy, and the rest of the world is losing patience with this attitude. This is why US officials are trying to change their image without changing their policies so much: The first half of the article reports on the idealistic claims made by the United States, which sound great. Only, the second half of the article points out that these claims don't really mean anything in a historical context; they also don't have any specific dates attached. Essentially, no concrete plans were laid.
Here, science communication lies in the presentation of environmental policy, in which idealistic claims can be made but carry little substance or bite in a practical sense. Is this kind of communication still valuable, then, in that it can change the way we look at policymakers and US attitudes toward the environment?
Post a Comment