I’m not always the most aware when it comes to local issues, and Dave has me beat on posts period, especially on the local level. So I bring what I do have to the table through national issues that often slip through the cracks. In this case, I wish to discuss the United States and its emissions policies, specifically in their rejection of the Kyoto Protocol treaty.
From the BBC News:

“The Kyoto accord, which aims to curb the air pollution blamed for global warming, has come into force seven years after it was agreed.

The accord requires countries to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Some 141 countries, accounting for 55% of greenhouse gas emissions, have ratified the treaty, which pledges to cut these emissions by 5.2% by 2012.

But the world’s top polluter - the US - has not signed up to the treaty.

The US says the changes would be too costly to introduce and that the agreement is flawed.”

So why exactly isn’t the United States a part of this agreement? Let’s take a look at this helpful chart from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC):

According to this helpful research, we are currently in the lead in production of Co2 emissions. The United States is the best at everything! Emissions are no exception. At 25% of all the emissions produced in the world, we have more emissions than China, India, and Japan combined, even though we make up just 4% of the world’s population (source). Yet the Bush Administration’s approach to reduction of such emission has been a series of voluntary programs such as the Clear Skies Initiative (Feb. 2002), whose underlying theory is “that economic growth is key to environmental progress, because it is growth that provides the resources for investment in clean technologies.” This is basically fancy talk for lowering the standards of air pollution controls under the theory that, when they have more money, companies will voluntarily invest in their own pollution control. Under the Clear Skies Act of 2003:

• Allows 42 million more tons of pollution emitted than the EPA proposal.
• Weakens controls on mercury pollution levels compared to what would be achieved by enforcing the Clean Air Act stringently.
• Weakens the current cap on nitrogen oxide pollution levels from 1.25 million tons to 2.1 million tons, allowing 68 % more NOx pollution.
• Delays the improvement of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) pollution levels compared to the Clean Air Act requirements.
• Delays enforcement of smog-and-soot pollution standards until 2015. (source)

The two voluntary programs, “Climate Leaders” (sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency) and “Climate VISION” (sponsored by the Energy Department) that were encouraging private sectors to cut their own admissions are not working, according to the 51-page report by the Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) requested by John McCain and John Kerry. According to the study, both programs failed to ensure that participating firms set resolute targets for their reduction or even meet the goals they stated. Bush’s senior environmental adviser, James Connaughton, claims that the country does not have to regulate such pollutants because it is on track to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 18 percent relative to the gross domestic product by 2012.”Why do you need a mandate to deliver an outcome you’re already going to get?” he asked.

The GAO’s findings, however, disagree:

“As of November 2005, only 38 of the 74 firms in the EPA program had set reduction goals, according to the report. In the Energy Department program, 11 of the 15 participating trade groups have established targets, and five have reported on their emissions.” (source)

I remember when I first read about these voluntary initiatives and thought to myself, “Why would these companies comply voluntarily and invest their money in when they don’t have to? It seems more likely that they would just pocket the money for themselves.” In 2003, I was 15 years old. Now, four years later, the response to these programs is proving that at 15 years of age, I had more common sense than the Bush administration about the behavioral mechanisms of corporations.

It doesn’t matter if one takes the stance of global warming being a factor entirely of human production or even the affect of the planet still recovering from the ice age, or any of the stances in between, it is undeniable that these emissions have contributed to the warming of the planet. Whether or not they are solely responsible is not an issue when there is clear evidence that their further presence will be harmful. The link between Co2 emissions and the temperature of the planet is evident, no matter how you look at it:

And while 141 countries, including Japan, Russia, China and India are willing to acknowledge this, The United States of America, claims to have things under control in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Yeah, guys. Nice control.

To read the Kyoto Protocol, follow this link.