Energy and Our Global Environment

Our planet has a fever. While we are only beginning to understand the effects of global warming, no credible source disputes these facts:

1. global warming is happening,
2. the scientific community is 90% certain humans are the cause, and,
3. significant reductions of human CO2 output would help reduce its damaging effects.

Another fact: Americans comprise a mere 5% of the world population, yet we contribute 45% of the world’s toxic CO2 emissions.

What we don’t know is how dramatic the effects of global warming may be. All indications are that we could soon reach a tipping point, after which changes in human behavior would have minor impact on the effects of global warming. In other words, we are running out of time and need to make some responsible decisions now.

A deteriorating natural environment is another factor that we simply do not sufficiently value when paying for energy sources. And global warming is local warming, too. Regional effects pose more immediate problems in areas where primary industries include tourism and recreation (for example down hill snow skiing). One such region -- the Mountain West -- offers a prime example of an area dependent on tourism and recreation for its economy, not to mention water supplies threatened by climate change.

Is continuing our current level of dirty fossil fuel consumption worth the certain risk to the environment on which we depend for human survival and economic well-being? As the first generation of U.S. citizens to begin understanding the threat of global warming, do we not owe it to the people of less industrialized countries (who are less the cause, but who stand most to suffer) and to our children to demand a change? If we don’t change now, we may not have the chance to make meaningful change in the future.

But the fact is, despite the indispensability of U.S. leadership to address global warming, our government is lagging behind other world governments at seriously addressing the relationship between energy policy and global warming. A case in point: the German government supports a plan that would limit the average global temperature increase to 3.6 degrees. Experts say that meaningful goal would require -- by 2050 -- a global reduction of in carbon emissions of 50% below 1990 levels. But our government is calling for setting unenforceable "targets" for curbing greenhouse gas, not concrete limits on emissions. From the world's leading contributor to global warming, that kind of standard is simply irresponsible and unacceptable. We can and must show better leadership than that.

Click here to learn about potential solutions to our national energy crisis. To help us create greater energy literacy for all sectors of our democracy so we can act more responsibly, click here.