USA and Global Warming
The political system of USA
The power of the United States has been divided into three branches like in other democracies in the world. These branches are: the legislative arm, the executive arm, and the judicial arm. The legislative arm, which is making the laws, consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The executive arm is the President and his administration. Finally, the judicial arm is the Supreme Court and other federal courts. The President has a big amount of power but he cannot pass laws alone. The Congress is the only branch that can pass a law.
There are two big parties in American politics: The Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The Democratic Party is mainly a liberal party supported by the labor organizations and the intellectuals. The Democrats favors a government that should focus on social matters. The Republican Party is a more conservative party that is supported by the big corporations and the industry. The Republicans wants the government to have as little involvement in public life as possible. The difference between the two parties can be hard to see because a Republican from one state can easily be more liberal than a Democrat from another state.
Only two parties have grown big in the United States. This is because of the American election system. However, there are several small parties like Ralph Nader's Green Party and in fact there are also a Socialist Party and a Communist Party.
The oil companies' relations to the Republican Party
The Republican Party had a somewhat positive attitude towards fossil fuel in spite of the facts showing that global warming was at least partially caused by the emission of carbon dioxide. Keeping this in mind when looking at the list of donations to political parties between 1990 and 2002 it shows that there must be a connection. This is also the conclusion that was drawn by the non-partisan and nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics in a report on the money involved in the presidential election campaign of 2000[13]. The report shows that for each dollar the oil and gas industry contributed to American politics the Republican Party received 78 cents. Another interesting fact is that the number one recipient of money in the last presidential election was George W. Bush who is now President of the USA. What also draws attention is that the amount donated to George W. Bush was the highest amount ever donated to a single federal candidate.
The oil and gas companies are not responsible for the largest total contributions to American politics though the total amount donated in the period between 1990 and 2002 adds up to 112 billion dollars. That amount is to the Republican Party only. The money donated by the oil and gas industry places it as number seven on a list of the industries donating most to American politicians[14].
Other donators involved in the energy sector also heavily favored George W. Bush. Companies providing electric utilities donated 7 dollars to Bush for each dollar they donated to the campaign of Al Gore. Also the coal mining industry preferred a Republican president and for each donated dollar from this industry 88 cents of it arrived to the Bush campaign. The amounts donated by the companies providing alternative energy such as wind and solar power only donated microscopic sums of money to politics when compared to the rest of the energy sector. This is in spite of the fact that the donations from the alternative energy industry increased with 700 percent. The number one recipient of money from this industry was presidential candidate Al Gore.
This connection between the Republican Party and the oil and gas industry explains why the Republicans did not talk in favor of alternative energy sources that will not emit carbon dioxide or other harmful substances when used. The Kyoto Treaty was aimed at minimizing the exact same industry that had contributed the most to the Republican Party.
The US demand of oil
The United States of America is very dependent on oil and this dependency pushes the American oil companies on to the global oil market. To have a large inefficient car that runs a few miles per gallon, to waste energy and to make many frequent trips is all part of the American lifestyle and currently the source of energy to this lifestyle is oil.
The demand of oil cannot be met by the US oil industry and that forces USA on to the global market. Two-thirds of this global market consists of oil from the Middle East and countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait therefore control the oil prices[15]. That makes the US very sensitive to problems in the Middle East and this also carries a big part of the reason why the US is so interested in a way against Iraq.
A US, which would be self-sufficient with energy, would have a serious impact on the world and would make the American economy flourish. It would demand investments in sustainable energy but in the long-term period it would pay back and the American way of life would not have to change.
The psychology of abundance
The American reluctance to take drastic steps to reduce pollution roots in something deeper than just economy. The American culture bears a thought of the unlimited wealth of the world. This is rooted all the way back when the first colonists arrived to North America. What they saw was a country that was very rich in resources and this was the direct opposite to what Europe looked like at the time. This new land was therefore very attractive to farmers, game hunters, lumberjacks, and gold and silver miners since here they could become rich by exploiting the seemingly endless wealth. When there were no more resources in a particular area the people could just move further west to find more unexploited resources. The people exploiting the nature also restrained any kind of government regulation and it was hard to convince people that the resources of the nature should not be used[16].
The wealth was not endless and the buffalo was hunted to near extinction, forests were cut and burned away, and mining polluted rivers. Nevertheless, the soul of abundance still lies in the American culture.
The US alternative to the Kyoto Treaty
When President George W. Bush neglected the Kyoto Treaty he was heavily criticized by the other nations that signed the treaty. The rejection of the treaty came although the treaty had been negotiated and signed by the US. The European Union considered financial penalties on imported goods from USA but went away from that idea again since it would cause more bad than good. Instead a dialog with the US was tried but it had no effect on the decision. The no to the Kyoto Treaty almost stopped it from being set into function since there was a minimum of countries that had to sign and ratify the treaty for it to take effect. In fact, the treaty itself stated a minimum of countries that had to sign it.
The rest of the world united on the treaty after some discussion and left USA out. Environmental grass-roots movements from Europe still complained about the US rejection while the American environmental movements decided to move on and concentrate on other more important achievable subjects.
President George W. Bush could not stand the pressure of not doing anything to save the environment and in the first months of 2002 his administration came up with the Clear Skies Initiative that also consisted of a plan to save the Earth from global warming. With tax credits and other incentives the plan was to encourage business and farmers to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. The target is to lower the so-called intensity of greenhouse gas emissions by 18 percent. At first sight this seems to be a much bigger reduction than the one proposed in the Kyoto Treaty but reading the plan closer shows that the term ``greenhouse gas intensity'' is the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions and economic output. This means that emissions will still continue to grow as long as the economy will do the same.
The cut in the greenhouse gas emissions has been compared to removing around 70 million cars from the roads of USA. This is a reduction on 4.5 percent of greenhouse gas emission compared to 1990 levels. The initiative plans to reach this target in 2012. The Kyoto Treaty proposed cuts for the US in the same period on seven percent and for the European Union a reduction on eight percent.
Opinions on the Bush initiative
Several people including former Vice President Al Gore criticized the plan for still tying up USA to global oil. The plan is not solving the problems of oil dependency but instead just postponing the problems. According to research done by CNN reporter John Kerry the US will be more dependent on foreign oil in the year 2020 than today. Kerry's research together with research done by international environmental organization Greenpeace also shows that the initiative would at worst increase the greenhouse gas emission with 30 percent by the end of this decade[17].
The Bush plan is voluntary and that has also been criticized from many sides. In the eyes of the US Environmental Protection Agency, the US businesses will be most creative when they are not forced to find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will be a slow process though several sources have concluded. The Bush administration has complained about the Kyoto Treaty being bureaucratic but a voluntary program driven by tax credits is also bureaucratic for the companies. Now the job of investigating laws has been moved from the government and to each company that wants to find a way to pay fewer taxes.
With the current plan the polluting power plants in the US are exempt from clean-air standards and will therefore continue the pollution and not only cause global warming but also continue to take part in the cause of acid rain.
The good side of the initiative is that it will not hurt the American economy here and now and therefore the US Environmental Protection Agency has called it ``a better alternative to The Kyoto Treaty.'' The Conservative government of Australia that also fears the economic impact of the Kyoto Treaty has praised the initiative.