Politics, News & Issues >
Environment (Other)
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedDoes the Clean Air Bill in the US contribute effectively to environmental needs?
Results so far:
| Yes | 45% | 24 votes | Total: 53 votes | |
| No | 55% | 29 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesWhile Al Gore and his minions are getting all the publicity about their global warming show business extravaganza, the real overall problem of global pollution is often ignored. Although there are arguments as to whether the global warming theory has been proven, there's no question that pollution has a destructive impact on the world's environment.
The US Clean Air Bill, if applied effectively as intended, will allow the world's most industrialized nation to make positive steps to attack pollution. It is already helping to reduce industrial smoke output, auto emissions and ocean pollution. As anyone in downtown Los Angeles, New York, Chicago or Philadelphia will tell you, or driving along I-95 can tell you, it isn't perfect yet. However, the rules are in effect, and conditions are far better than they were just a few years ago.
The US refused to sign the Kyoto Accords, a political attempt to regulate worldwide pollution, several years ago, because the US didn't want to be regulated unfairly. The Accords did not take into consideration the rise of other heavily-industrializ ed nations, primarily China, and gave them a pass on pollution. The reason was that they needed time to catch up to their industrial competitors. Walk around downtown Shanghai today and you'll think you're in Los Angeles in the 1960s.
Of course, the Clean Air Bill will contribute to fighting pollution. The only question is whether it can keep ahead of all the new sources of pollution.
Learn more about this author, Ted Sherman.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
The USA clean air act is window dressing to disguise the fact that the world's one remaining superpower refuses to conform to the United Nations recommendation to accept the Kyoto Accord. A similar Act proposed in Canada was laughed out of Parliament and the Minister concerned lost her job. Our current Minister of the Environment distributed a few millions to the Provinces for his proposed Act and was slapped with a lawsuit for reneging on the Kyoto Accord together with the Minister of Foreign Affairs et al. Those millions were inadequate to replace even one coal burning hydro manufacturer in Nova Scotia. The most we have seen for it is a few advertisements on television saying ' Clean up Nova Scotia.'
Meanwhile the Canadian Government,is known variously as the Trojan Horse built to destroy the Kyoto Accord signed by one hundred and forty six nations or a bridge builder to bring the USA in line with other developed countries. The USA is measurably the world's worst offender for creating the six carbon gas emissions which are causing temperature increases, arctic melting and health damage to humans and other species from pollutants.
If the USA is so afraid of damage to its economy by embracing Kyoto, it is denigrating the creativity of its citizenry who have built the worlds greatest consumer society. If Europe can observe Kyoto what is wrong with the USA? Many green and recycling businesses are now in place globally. The Republic of Ireland, once notoriously poor, has grown rich by embracing and developing computerization. Their travel advertisements shout 'Come and visit. Now we are richer than you.'
One has to assume that the USA Clean Air Act is another attempt at obfuscation and fear of change. Already the Sierra Club has cleaned Boston harbor with obvious improvement in the quality of air. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed treaties with other states and two Canadian Provinces to create a farseeing plan to reduce motor vehicle emissions.
Unfortunat ely it is business that causes the majority of the most damaging carbon emissions. The United Kingdom passed a Clean Air Act for Industry about forty-five years ago that leaves Canada and the USA years behind. Is the USA greedy or to broke to espouse the Kyoto Accord? The USA will be surpassed by carbon emissions from China by the fall of this year.
China, as a developing nation, has greater leeway under Kyoto than the developed nations. Already their city skies are choked with cold dust and one can expect a multitude of heart lung illnesses in their future. Fortunately China is listening. They have requested expertise in cutting back on carbon emissions before Beijing hosts the 2008 Olympics.
At the present time a Cool cities guide is being produced by the Sierra Club. Their Internet address is sierraclub.org/coolc ities. Mayors of forty of the worlds largest cities met in New York.Larry Fellows of Lallapalooza is touring US cities offering art and music, while greening roos and parks to cool the cities and diminish that citis carbon footprint.
Toronto is demonstrating a determination to create a zero carbon footprint for its city. Tax concessions are being offered to conformist citizens and big business is funding the changeover which includes installing solar heat in homes and an improved public transportation infrastructure. Toronto in June 2007 is already reaching its ceiling for annual smog days and summer is not yet here. If Toronto can do it, so can Los Angeles.
China is an emerging super power, but China is willing to cut back without obfuscation. Meanwhile the USA offers a Clean Air Act instead of applying the considerable intellectual power of its scientists and entrepreneurs to herald a new era. If the USA continues on its present path it will begin to be seen as yesterday's man, scrambling to pay its debts to China and the United Nations, while pleading for special indulgence for what was the western world's last superpower
Learn more about this author, Caveat.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Environment (Other)
- Will technology spare the earth?
- Is it fair to ask underdeveloped countries to "go green" when many advanced industrial countries owe their success to destructive environmental practices?
- Should the banking industry be nationalized?
- Environmentalists: Do they do more good or more harm?
- What is more important: Alternative fuels or affordable food?
- Are we over regulating our environment?
