Scientists around the world are coming to the same conclusion: Global warming is real, it is at one of its highest points ever and it is increasing.
Geophysicists from Oregon and Utah recently published study results indicating that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere, especially North America, have increased nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the industrial revolution began about 150 years ago. It only stands to reason that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, produced heavily since then, are indeed contributing to depletion of the ozone layer.
The National Center for Atmospheric Research recently reported that rising global temperatures may lead to bigger, more frequent storms within the next century, and a separate Purdue study supported those findings.
According to a European study that analyzed Antarctic ice, the amount of carbon dioxide – a greenhouse gas – in the atmosphere is at a 650,000 year high.
Yet Americans still don’t seem to buy into the idea that global warming exists.
On Monday, delegates from the United States and other U.N. nations began a 10-day conference in Canada to discuss global climate change. Harlan L. Watson, senior climate negotiator for the State Department, defended the Bush administration’s decisions not to join the Kyoto Protocol – an international treaty signed by 156 countries that aims to reduce heat-trapping gases by 7 percent below 1990 levels. But representatives of other nations blasted the United States for not joining, according to The Associated Press.
This international criticism is merited. The United States is resisting current and future Kyoto regulations. Chief environmental adviser to the president, James Connaughton has expressed his reluctance to agree to any sort of binding treaty, stating U.S. economic development as the main factor behind his reasoning. This line of reasoning is confusing and disheartening. We acknowledge the severe economic repercussions of reducing U.S. emissions, especially as our nation strives to compete with growing powers that lack tough environmental restrictions, such as China. But shouldn’t the president receive environmental advice from someone concerned more about global warming than economic factors?
The Bush administration has shown general disregard for the environment, and consequently, human health after scientific research has indicated dangers. For example, this administration relaxed regulations involving the use of methyl bromide, a chemical pesticide which has been shown to damage the ozone layer. And like other pesticides, methyl bromide can be responsible for serious neurological damage. Although the nation is part of a treaty designed to decrease the use of methyl bromide, the U.S. administration has demanded treaty exemptions to prevent “market disruption.”
When the United States refuses to join global environmental coalitions or requires provisions to prevent any economic harm, our country sets an irresponsible example for the rest of the world. We need to demonstrate environmental sensibility while we remain the most powerful economic nation on the planet. The United States needs to show solidarity with the fight against global warming. Working with the U.N. to reach a compromise on anti-climate change regulations, and ending the use of dangerous pesticides, would be great ways to get started.