First, the Administration can start by ratifying the Kyoto protocol and by entering it into force. The Kyoto Protocol came about from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Protocol is an agreement that commits industrialized countries and the European community to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The protocol recognizes that, due to a larger period of industrial activity, developed nations bear the brunt of the responsibility for the emissions. The Protocol advocates a reduction rate of an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period of 2008-2012. Although the United States is a 1998 signatory to the protocol, the Bush administration declined to ratify the protocol. Until the protocol is ratified, it has no binding legal force in the United States.
Second, the White House should provide more incentives for the production of clean energy. In 2008, the federal government spent more than $24.5 billion on electricity and fuel. In January of 2010, Obama signed a bill pledging that the federal government’s various agencies would reduce their greenhouse emissions by 28 percent by 2020. He also noted that the reduction of greenhouse gas pollution would save $8 billion to $11 billion in energy costs over the next decade.
The U.S. government can follow the example of Denmark which has turned its garbage into a clean fuel using incinerators, also known as waste-to-energy plants. These plants convert organic and inorganic waste material into heat and electricity. The ones in Denmark are equipped with filters that catch toxins such as mercury and dioxin, which are released during the chemical processes. Denmark, a small country with only 5.5. million inhabitants, boasts 29 such plants and 10 more are in the works. Other countries such as Germany and the Netherlands are following suit. What these countries realize is that producing their own clean, and relatively, cheap energy, will reduce their reliance on foreign oil, diminish the use of landfills and its deleterious effects, and also reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
The idea of waste-to-energy plants isn’t without opposition. Some, including Matt Hale of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency note that several factors including: the “abundance of cheap landfills” in the United States; a worry that such plants would undermine recycling programs; and a “negative public perception” of garbage incinerators” are obstacles in the way of waste to energy plants gaining favor in the U.S. Others, such as the New York Public Interest Research Group, have proclaimed that “incinerators are really the devil.” For those organizations, the objective should be “zero waste,” rather than the construction of a plant that must be fed by waste.
But the reality is that not all waste can be recycled. While the above-mentioned concerns are valid, a 2009 study by the E.P.A. and North Carolina State University scientists concluded that waste-to-energy plants were the most environmentally-beneficial way to dispose of urban waste that is not recyclable. The study further noted that this innovative technology would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, while also producing a large amount of electricity.
Nickolas J. Themelis, a professor of engineering at Columbia University, and a waste-to-energy proponent, has been quoted as deploring the United States’s resistance to waste-to-energy plants as both economically and environmentally “irresponsible.”
Mr. President, it is time to take action.
Ifeoma Ajunwa obtained an undergraduate degree in Political Science and Sociology at the University of California, Davis where she was a McNair Scholar. She earned her law degree from the University of San Francisco School of Law. She is admitted to the Bar in California (2007) and New York (2008).Ifeoma has conducted extensive research and advocacy work with such organizations as the NAACP (Washington Lobbying Division) and the United Nations Human Rights Council. She is interested in the connection between corporate social responsibility and social justice. She will be a PhD student in Sociology at Columbia University starting in Fall 2010.
2 comments:
We really need an effort beyond the scale of the space race to address this problem. Trillions and trillions need to be invested to do the things you mention (reduce carbon output, invest in clean energy, etc.) and we also need to rebuild our communities and infrastructure. We need denser living and working arrangements where public transit is financially viable and people can walk/bike to work. We also need a real cash-for-clunkers program that's not just a cash transfer to upper middle class suburban whites for moderately-improved fuel efficiency, but a real retrofitting of our automobile infrastructure.
One of the main reasons I live in San Francisco is that it allows me to not depend on a car. Since San Francisco has a good public transportation system (not a great one, but fairly dependable), I haven't owned a car in five years and I am very happy for the opportunity for more physical activity that also affords (think about the high rates of obesity in the U.S.).
Thus, I definitely think it is a good idea to advocate for denser living/work zoning where the government steps in to disincentivize the sort of sprawling surburbs we have in Southern California, where everyone MUST have a car merely to get to work or even the grocery store and the smog is so thick that many of L.A.'s denizens have upper respiratory illnesses.
America really has to re-think its "car culture" both for the health of the planet and for its own health.
Post a Comment