Responding to a question in the
Democratic Presidential Debate, Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator form
Vermont, stated that Climate Change was the biggest security threat the
world faces. In a way, it shows how the politics of Climate Change has become
divisive: Early in 2015, Jim Inhofe, a US Senator, bought a snowball to the
floor of the Senate to “prove” there is no Global Warming or Climate Change[1].
On the other end of the spectrum, here is a US Presidential candidate who
believes that Climate Change is the “Singular greatest threat to this world”[2].
While leading Republican Candidate Donald
Trump tweeted in 2012 “The concept of global warming was created by and for the
Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive”[3],
and stated in 2015 that “It’s
weather. You’re going to have bad weather.”[4]
Yes, Mr. Trump. Really Bad
Weather. The battle lines are clearly drawn: a Climate “sceptic” Republicans
versus the Climate “Apologetic” Democrats. The issue isn’t full black and white
here though, as Joint Declarations such as this one[5]
by “Partnership for Secure America” composed by both Democrats and Republicans calling
for concrete action against Climate Change “as a Global Threat Multiplier” show
how important it is we take Climate Change seriously. But why am I concentrating
on the Climate Change politics of US? I’m glad you asked.
Climate Change has only become a political issue that weighs on US politics
recently. World politics however, have long been defined by the Developed
Countries versus Developing Countries, a.k.a. USA & Allies v. China, India
&Rest. The issue is simple: The developed nations want to blame the whole
issue on the Developing Countries and take less cuts than as the Developing
Countries as they produce more Greenhouse Gases. Developing Countries
meanwhile, will regulate their use while calling into account the Developed Countries
for their earlier indiscriminate use, and want to be compensated to move into
cleaner energy sources.
Extensively debated in the Rio
Summit in 1992, evolving the “Common But Differentiated Responsibilities” (CBDR)
Formula.[6]
To ensure that both sides, the Developed and the Developing Countries take their
fair share, and walk away happy. Enshrined in principle 7 of the Rio
Declaration, it is an important milestone for humanity. One where the Nation States
recognised that the limitless exploitation of this Earth cannot continue. But
there has not been a single legally binding document applicable to the whole
nations of the world. The closest we have achieved to a Legally binding
Document is the Kyoto protocol, but the United States did not ratify it, and
the largest producer of CO2, China was not party to a cap- so was the third
largest CO2 producer, India.
This is why the Paris Agreement
assumes significance. Mankind lost that opportunity in 2009 at Copenhagen but
this time around, the nations have an opportunity to begin healing the planet.
The United States plays a crucial
role in all this. As the leading nation, the decisions and directions of the
President of the United States have an immense ramification. The Paris Agreement will be worthless if
there is no American pressure on the rest of the world. Especially, if someone
like Donald Trump or Jeb Bush who believe that Climate Change isn’t real,
becomes President then the consequences would be huge. None of the Republican Candidates believe that
the effects of Climate Change are irreparable. Meanwhile, The Democratic
Candidates have unveiled their plans to combat or “reverse” the effects of
Global Warming/Climate Change. Hillary Clinton believes massive subsidization
and “half a Billion Solar Panels” is the way to go. While this is definitely
better than nothing, Mrs Clinton does not bring in the urgency expected of her.[7]
Bernie Sanders plans, meanwhile involve “Cutting U.S. carbon pollution by 40
percent by 2030 and by over 80 percent by 2050 by putting a tax on carbon
pollution, repealing fossil fuel subsidies and making massive investments in
energy efficiency and clean, sustainable energy such as wind and solar power. “[8]
The 2016 elections, I believe, will
be a defining moment for America as well as for the world. Electing a Republican
may spell a premature end not only for the Paris Agreement, but also for
comprehensive action against Climate Change as well.
~
By Ananth Krishna S
First posted on Snsbl Thghts.
This article is written in the context of American politics. I will be analyzing the Indian aspect in a future Article.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/jim-inhofe-climate-snow_n_6763868.html?ir=India&adsSiteOverride=in
“Jim Inhofe brings in snowball to prove Climate Change is a ‘hoax’” As seen on
13:10,09-12-2015, The Huffington Post online, published on 27-02-15
[2] https://berniesanders.com/issues/climate-change/
“Bernie Sanders on Climate Change” As seen on 11:08, 13-12-2015
[3] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/265895292191248385?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Tweeted by @realDonaldTrump at 11:15, 6 November 2012
[4] http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/donald-trump-denies-existence-climate-change-bad-weather “Donald Trump Denies existence of
Climate Change: ‘Bad Weather’” As seen on 21:21,11-12-2015, Right Wing Watch,
Published on 28-7-2015
[5] http://www.psaonline.org/climateaction “Republicans &
Democrats Agree: US Security Demands Global Climate action” as seen on 10:59,
13-12-2015,
[6] http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/151320/
“Common but differentiated responsibilities” ,As seen on 19:06,12-12-2015,Article
on The Encyclopaedia of Earth, Published on 27-01-2007
[7] htt06p://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/29/hillary-clinton-climate-change-plan
“Hillary Clinton’s Climate Change Plan “just plain silly” says leading Expert”,
The Guardian, As seen on 19:24, 12-12-2015, Published on 29-07-2015, by Caty
Enders
[8] https://berniesanders.com/issues/climate-change/
Bernie Sanders on Climate Change. As seen on 19:54, 12-12-2015
Very well analysed! Nice article with all references credited! Looking forward to your article on Climate Change in Indian Context! What do you think, according to you, are the reasons why Republicans are indifferent to Global Warming and other climate changes when compared to Democrats ?
ReplyDeleteI would be digressing if I said that the Republicans are overly bought and paid for by "Oil". The Republicans appeal to Religious Whites, who are skeptics because they believe that it is not possible in "God's World". these are the same people who believe that evolution is a hoax, and that the earth is less than a 10,000 years old.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the Compliments!
Thank You!
Delete