In the Hot Seat

Here, in Spain, I grumble every time that I have to use energy. A load of laundry costs $3, and the dryers are so ineffective that I hang even my delicates out the window to air-dry. Hot water lasts five minutes—many nights, I rinse out shampoo with cold water. My friends in home-stays tell me that if they leave their lights on for even a few minutes when they’re not in a room, their home-stay mothers yell at them. It’s really annoying, but it’s also made me realize: In America, we waste a lot of energy.

I’ve been known to throw one shirt in the dryer to unwrinkle it. And honestly, at home, when do I ever turn off my computer? Admittedly, energy-saving abroad is usually more an issue of affordability than it is of environmental awareness, but in America, where environmental awareness does exist, we have a responsibility to conserve. Individuals should save energy however they can and the government must do its part on a global, legislative level.

In September, officials from over 150 countries met at a U.N. conference on climate change and the international response to global warming. Many saw this conference as testing ground for ideas likely to be presented in a separate December conference in Bali, which will address what legislation should supplant the Kyoto Protocol upon its 2013 expiration. At September’s conference, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s presentation veered noticably away from the idea of emissions caps, focusing almost exclusively on the potential of improved “energy technologies.” Paired with President Bush’s decision to hold a separate climate change meeting on his own on “energy technologies” two days after the U.N. one, this demonstrates the U.S.’ government’s troubling refusal to set definite energy-reduction goals for itself as well as its flagrant disrespect for the international community.

The U.S. is largely responsible for the state of the world’s environment. Global warming is caused by the greenhouse effect, or the retention of “greenhouse gases,” like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane, within the atmosphere. In 1990, the year that the 1997 Kyoto Protocol took into account when setting emission reduction goals, the U.S. produced 36% of all global emissions, making it the world’s biggest net polluter. More recent evidence suggests China has now surpassed the U.S. as biggest net polluter; the U.S., however, still emits more greenhouse gases per head than any other country.

Despite our overwhelming contribution to global warming and the constant political rhetoric that action is being taken, the U.S. has failed to independently reduce emissions by even the 6% from 1990 levels that the 1997 Kyoto Protocol would have asked of us. On the contrary, between just 1990 and 2004 our carbon dioxide emissions increased by 15.8%. Had we independently reduced greenhouse gas emissions, the Senate’s current refusal to ratify the new Kyoto treaty might be excusable. As it stands, however, we appear both hypocritical and uncooperative.

The U.S.’s refusal to ratify Kyoto is largely based on the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, adopted in Congress in 1997. This resolution advised the President not to sign treaties like Kyoto that do not demand emissions limits on developing countries (like China) and that would result in harm to the U.S. economy. Both points are flawed. While it is important that developing countries are, in the future, subject to the same rigid emissions caps currently imposed upon developed nations, developed countries—the countries that historically have “caused” global warming—cannot afford to postpone action. If the U.S., a rich country with advanced green technology, does not make a commitment to reduce emissions, how can we ask developing countries with fewer resources to do the same? Further, reducing greenhouse gas emission will not harm the U.S. economy, at least for now. According to Robert Sawyer, chair of the California Air Resources Board, “the savings in energy will pay for the cost of technology that’s needed to reduce energy consumption.”

Now don’t get me wrong; President Bush’s September conference on clean energy technologies surely did some good. Such technologies will, I’m sure, play an important role in the fight against global warming, and I’m glad to see that our government is making alternative energy a priority. But developing green technologies—much less making them popularly available—takes time, which is a luxury we can’t afford. Clean energy technologies must play a role in the U.S.’s effort to go green—but their development should not pass as a substitute for it.

That last week’s Nobel Peace Prize went to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore ’69 emphasizes that a cooperative response to global warming is a priority worldwide. The U.S. must recognize this and practice the environmentalism that it preaches. When the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change begins in Bali on Dec. 3, I hope that President Bush is there free of the specter of Byrd-Hagel—and that Congress also recognizes the need for us take a global lead, accept an emissions cap, and make sure that emissions reduction happens domestically.

Justine R. Lescroart ’09 is an English and American literature and language concentrator in Quincy House, and is currently studying abroad in Granada, Spain. Her column appears on alternate Wednesdays.