Global warming is the most serious danger humanity faces. In order to proceed with any serious efforts to address the problem, the United States will have to show leadership, and engage with other nations in a meaningful way.
Let's hear from an expert on grave dangers, former head of UNMOVIC, Hans Blix:
Norris: Speaking of multilateralism, do you notice, as many have suggested, that there's an increasing unilateralist bent in the United States government?
Blix: Yeah. On big issues like war in Iraq, but in many other issues they simply must be multilateral. There's no other way around. You have the instances like the global warming convention, the Kyoto protocol, when the U.S. went its own way. I regret it. To me the question of the environment is more ominous than that of peace and war. We will have regional conflicts and use of force, but world conflicts I do not believe will happen any longer. But the environment, that is a creeping danger. I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict.
Link
John Kerry is the best candidate to address the danger of global warming, bar none. He understands the need for multilateralist policy, and the need for protecting the environment, and the need for science unfettered by ideology. In his own words:
I believe that with leadership from the White House we can take bold steps toward protecting our environment. I hope to put an end to the false argument that America must choose between a growing economy and a clean environment. Americans can unite behind policies that will protect our natural resources and create jobs inventing, designing, manufacturing and constructing the clean technologies of tomorrow. If we offer America a better choice than the divisive rhetoric of the Bush Administration and others who want to turn back the clock on environmental protections, we can build a better future. As President, I hope to enact a federal budget with strong funding for public health and environmental programs; help the millions of Americans facing environmental injustice; enact an energy policy that will protect the environment and make America more secure, including the development of renewable fuels and energy efficiency; significantly reduce sulfur, nitrogen, carbon and mercury emissions; enact policies to protect our water, including reducing runoff pollution; protect our national parks and wild lands for future generations; reduce the toxic chemicals released into our environment; establish America as a leader the international effort to protect the global environment, including the development of a binding treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and a global plan to protect our oceans; craft free trade agreements that protect workers and the environment; and create thousands of good jobs developing clean energy and environmental technologies and infrastructure.
Link
That quote was taken from the League of Conservation Voters (lcv), who endorsed John Kerry on the eve of the New Hampshire primary. Why not Dennis Kucinich? Doesn't he have a good lcv voting record, and good policy positions on the environment? Yes he does, and we are indeed fortunate that he is raising these issues, and that other candidates are coming around to a better way of thinking. Kerry, however, has qualifications and advantages that cannot be overlooked.
Negotiating treaties requires making compromises and sacrifices, weighing issues from various sides, considering the impacts on different constuencies and polities, and being committed to a course of action. The position you end up with is never ideal. That's not the way it should be judged. If it's workable, if it addresses the problems it set out to address in a meaningfully way, without onerous side effects, then we can judge the negotiations a success.
I agree with many of the positions that Dennis Kucinich has taken, for instance, on labeling GM foods. But I don't believe that rhetorically or practically he has positioned himself to implement these policies in the next four years. It matters. We can always choose to eat organic foods, to buy hybrid vehicles or ride bicyles, to protest inadequate international agreements, to pressure government to address our concerns. But we can only elect a president once every four years, and if the past four years have shown us anything, they have shown us that having an anti-science, anti-environment, xenophobic occupant in the White House does nothing to advance the cause of protecting the environment, and in fact retards the progress that has been made in the past. Naturally, the converse is true. If we want to deal effectively with the issue of global climate change, we need to elect a president who is pro-science, pro-environment, and who is prepared to engage with other nations in a serious way.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
