Environmentally Political

I was reading this article on the Straits Times yesterday about the Artic Glacier that is melting at a rate that is faster than what the Scientists forecasted a few years back. So now, the sea level is rising at a faster-than-expected rate and in less than 100 years to come, some of the lower lands in US will be underwater soon...

The writer was analyzing why, when such obvious warnings have been announced to the world leaders to curb fossil fuels burning, lowering energy consumption therefore reducing global warming are not heeded.

Politically, environmental issues are just not a priority, as compared to the country's economy, nuclear issues and lately fighting terrorism globally. We all know that the world will die if we do not do something about it, but we just keep thinking that there is still time and resources and it can be done later, after the issues with a 'higher' priority are resolved first.

However, these are just signs to show that we did not take these warnings seriously, and until the time human really do realise, it will all be too late for us. The environment pacts & policies between the countries seem to be somewhat 'cosmetic' or just a strategy to build up political relationship with other countries. Take for example the Kyoto Protocol that is signed by some of the top greenhouse gases emissions countries. This includes US, EU, Australia, India etc. The US, though signed, did not oblige to the protocol to cut down on greenhouse gases emissions, giving the reason that other developing countries (such as China and India) did not sign this Protocol and was also unhappy between the 'unfair' classification between the developing and the developed countries in the Protocol.

Firstly, Kyoto Protocol is really aimed at cutting down greenhouse gases emissions of each country, with the ultimate objective to reduce global warming. If you are really sincere about this, then why in the world would you want to question this 'unfair classification' between the developing and developed countries, and just because you feel that China is exempted, when she is the top greenhouse gases emitter, you will refuse to do it? By the way, according to EIA (Energy Information Administration), US emits more carbon dioxide than China does.

Kyoto Protocol does not have any penalties if it is not obligated, which is why, till now, gives US the chance to play 'why is it that she does not need to do but I have to??' game. Sounds childish? That's exactly the game they are playing now.
Worst, the US president is now more concentrated on war games, nuclear development, fighting terrorism and has, at an earlier period, even attempt to downplay the effects of global warming with human acitivities. Simply saying, environmental issues are not on the agenda right now. And if it is ever going to be, it is most like to come with some political payoffs.

Baiscally, cutting down on greenhouse gasses depends on individual country, and if each country's leader is keen on doing a good job, they will not, in the first place, think about why some countries are not obliged to do the same thing. They never think about this same reasoning when it comes to the nuclear treaty though.

The Austrlians follows the US whenever they go, decided not to obliged to the protocol too, because the PM argued this would stress their job unemployment rate, and that the Australians have done enough on cutting down Carbon Dioxide emission. The opposition Labour Party disagreed, indicating the Protocol as a 'risk-free' and that Australia will have no problem in obligation, since they have done enough to meet the Protocol's standard. They went with the US to sign the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which does not set a minimal limit to reduce greenhouse gasses. Simply, it's a 'own time own target' agreement, which, involves China. Will the US ever sign it, if China is not in? Another point to add, this agreement is a no-obligation agreement. Which means, US can set easily attainable target, and still show that it is 'conern and making an effort to reduce greenhouse gasses'.

This will continue and more 'cosmetic' environmental friendly agreement will come out, while environmental issues will become more pressing in the future. When will it come to a point that politics can be set aside and we truely see the meaning of these agreements?

*Information can found from Wikipedia and Straits Times comments*
*Writer is really analyzing situation base on surface evidence and commentaries from other sources. Writer is not responsible for any misinterpretation of information and comments are purely based on personal thoughts*