Last week the Environmental Protection Agency declared an “endangerment finding” concerning greenhouse gases produced by vehicles and power plants. The findings were clear: human-induced emissions leading to climate change, is a danger to public health. The announcement was part of a Supreme Court decision, in 2007, to have the Agency review scientific data of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. This would allow the EPA regulation power over emissions that affect human health, under the current legislation, without having to go through Congress.
There is still opposition from several parties to go ahead with climate change legislation, particularly the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who back in July of this year called for a trial on climate change.
The announcement came on the opening day of the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen or “Hopenhagen” as the mood suggests. Many are wondering if the announcement was purposely scheduled on this day. Regardless, Lisa P. Jackson, EPA Administrator states that, “the vast evidence [towards greenhouse gas emissions and poor health] is unassailable.”
The 2009 Climate Change Summit is a push for a broad agreement and legal treaty; this international meeting is a defining moment. We can chose to either go down the path of sustainability together or track separate ineffective courses that will lead to the detriment of future generations' well-being.
There have been several commitments and possible drawbacks throughout the past week that could either lead to a consensus and formal agreement or hinder the hopes of future deals. The European Union promised to commit to 2.4 billion Euros (3.6 billion US dollars) on a yearly basis until 2012 – when the Copenhagen treaty would come into full force. This fund would be allocated to poorer countries to combat global warming, particularly Africa. Additionally, the EU agreed to reduce their emissions by 30% of 1990 levels by 2020. While this pledge is a step in the right direction, it is still short-term, and as many critics are pointing out "far short in comparison to the huge stimulus packages and bank bailouts paid by many governments in the wake of the global financial meltdown.” Perhaps, if climate change were viewed as a crisis instead of a burden, governments would be more willing to act immediately.
Additional demands came from developing countries like Bangladesh and the African Union. Bangladesh points out that of the one billion people directly affected by global warming, 15% live in Bangladesh. Therefore, 15% of any climate fund should go to Bangladesh, supplied by developed countries. Once this is granted the government would consider having the World Bank handle the fund on a short-term basis – basically handled by those adding to the original fund. Other obstacles came from the African Union, stating they will “scuttle any agreement” if demands for compensation for the effects of global warming are not met. Additionally, China, a large player in the Summit, will not sign any agreement, if the monetary pledge turns out to be an illusion.
While, not every country will agree on all apects of a treaty, the time is up. As Connie Hedegaard, Minister for the U.N. Climate Conference states, "people from all parts of the world, all walks of life have raised their voice demanding that we act now."
Comment on this blog! Please register
