The Group of Eight, Carbon Emissions, and AIDS--So many ills, so little time...
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published May 31, 2007, 3:34 pm in Military / Foreign policy, Environmental Issues.
Let's talk G-8. The Group of Eight comprises Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These countries make up more than 65% of the world's economy. Of course, we need to add China, India, and Spain in there, for those three are becoming huge economic powers. What do the G-8 countries do? Well, they meet once a year, for one thing, and this year--next wee--they're meeting in Germany because Germany's Merkle is serving as the president of the G-8.
The G-8 draws a lot of fire for various reasons, and the summits are often greeted by protests and even terrorism. Let's hope they stick to protests this year. Anyway, the group draws fire for two primary reasons. One is because they're all "Western" countries, or at least there aren't any members from below the equator, the "global south" as some call it, or the "tri-continental" countries. Therefore, some claim that the G-8 is really just another summit to try to keep these countries in power. That's probably a valid assumption, although I would assume that most everything countries do is tied to keeping power. In politics, altruism is only good if it leads people to like you more.
The other primary reason these summits draw so much fire is because these countries are generally seen as the responsible ones for much of the world's problems. When it comes to issues like global warming, it's true that these economic powers are responsible, but we can't forget about China and India are there, too. After all, they're the ones who refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, along with the U.S., of course. Are these countries actually responsible for poverty and the AIDS crisis in developing nations? Well, cause and effect is tricky as I always say, but I would still say it's unfair to blame the U.S. for the AIDS problem in Africa. Sure, we may not contribute as much as we could or should, but we're not really responsible.
Why are we talking about the G-8 summit a week before it happens? Well, because of George Bush.
Let's face facts: the U.S. is down in world opinion polls. When it comes to dangerous nations who are frowned upon, the U.S. is up there. Sure, we may not be dangerous in the same way that Iran or North Korea is, but our stock has plummetted since 9/11. Then, we were way up there. People felt sorry for us, and they rallied behind us. But, as Spiderman says at the end of the first one, with great power comes great responsibility, and there's some debate about whether or not we have used our power responsibly. Maybe Spiderman was really an allegory of the Bush administration...
This week, George Bush did three interesting things. First, he rejected Germany's proposal to reduce greenhouse emissions. Merkle had proposed a plan that was endorsed by Europe and Japan that would cut emissions by 50% by 2050. The U.S. rejected it, and that rejection drew fire from all kinds of places--Italy, Japan, Britain, etc.
Today, however, George Bush came out and spoke of the U.S. taking the lead in combatting climate change. How can that be? Is he talking out of both sides of his mouth? Is he saying this now just because he wants the U.S., one of the big oppositions in the past, to be remembered as a country who will fight global warming? Well, there's some of that, I'm sure. As I said, altrusim is a fiction. But what's going on with rejection of cutting emissions and then saying that the U.S. is a leader?
Well, it has to do with two things--caps on emissions and carbon-trading--that were the hallmark of the European plan. Caps will hurt the U.S. too much because so much of our infrastructure is already built and is based on releasing carbon dioxide. And the idea of carbon trading, which sounds good, well, we just don't like it. Why? Probably because we would be the ones who would end up buying all of the release-carbon-free cards.
So what does Bush want instead? Technology sharing and meetings. Meetings, yeah, like the one happening next week and the proposal that Bush refused. Technology sharing, sure, but it seems that wer're putting all of our stock into developing new technologies when there is low incentives for companies to develop these technologies because they don't have to. They can keep on polluting because there are no consequences for doing so. Necessity is the mother of invention, right? Well, that's debatable, too, but there is still some truth to it.
Basically, Bush wants his own stuff to pass and not to have to agree to what anyone else wants us to do. We can't agree to those German proposals because they may hurt us. But they will darn well have to agree to ours. That's what it means for us to "take the lead," like Bush wants. Sure, it's a good thing to try to do, but don't expect the U.S. to have to give anything up. We'll fight global warming our way, and everyone else had better agree with us.
Before we get to the real reason why Bush is agreeing to fight global warming now, let's look at what else Bush agreed to do this week: give lots more money to fight AIDS. Sure, it's only $30 billion, not nearly enough to satisfy most activists, but it's a big step forward.
What has prompted all of this compassion in our current president? Well, he gets one more G-8 summit before he retires next year, so he needs to leave his mark pretty soon. What will his legacy be? Well, right now, it centers on pulling us through 9/11 and then invading and getting the U.S. stuck in Iraq. Not a pretty picture. But if he can make a difference in fighting AIDS and global warming, maybe all that will change. Sure, it's strange to see our president make these moves, but it makes sense, too. The guy's on his way out, and he doesn't want to be remembered solely as a war president, even though that's what he likes to paint himself as. The guy needs more, and making steps toward fighting AIDS and global warming may give him what he needs. Even if they are good steps--and they are, believe me--we still have to view them as Bush's attempts to leave his mark in a positive way. Me, I can live with that. The ends justify the means, right?
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
This post has 1 feedback awaiting moderation...
Leave a comment