A Theory on Political Inaction

Barack Obama and John McCain, as I mentioned in "The Earth, Energy, and Politics," are, in their proposed energy policies, virtually in agreement on renewable energy. The two candidates, though, have demonstrated major disagreements on energy with their votes as Senators since 2005. Their votes show the massive division between the candidates, but the Senate is not always as divided as the two candidates. In fact, most of the one hundred Senators seem to decisively vote for any bill focusing exclusively on renewable energy. However, bills that have any major reference to oil drilling or oil companies appear to divide the Senate, even if those bills focused on renewable energy. No matter why some Senators vote differently because of references to oil in those bills, fossil fuels clearly have a profound impact on politics. If the government was able to negate the influence of fossil fuels on politics, then the United States could make much faster progress on renewable energy.

The issue of renewable energy, however, is not just a domestic issue, but also an international issue. Internationally, however, the focus on renewable energy has been driven by global warming, which has sometimes divided the international community. Two international protocols highlight this division - the Montreal Protocol and the Kyoto Protocol. The Montreal Protocol was formed to protect the ozone layer by eliminating ozone-depleting substances, and is often advertised as a symbol of international cooperation. This protocol was successful because of its scientific certainty, as the depletion of the ozone layer would have drastic consequences for life on Earth, since cancerous ultraviolet light would then be able to penetrate the atmosphere. The Kyoto Protocol, in contrast, was formulated to combat climate change by reducing the emissions of six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. Most countries have signed on to and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, but the United States has not. In fact, the United States Senate unanimously passed a bill called the Byrd-Hagel Resolution that essentially prohibited the United States from entering the Kyoto Protocol. America's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol is symbolic, not only because of its lone standing on the protocol, but also because of the universal agreement in the Senate on the opposition to the protocol. The United States did not reject the Kyoto Protocol because of a lack of scientific specificity, but climate change cannot be easily predicted. An increase in greenhouse gas concentrations will increase the Earth's temperature, but the resulting effects are completely variable, unlike the certain effects that would result from the depletion of the ozone layer. Without any certain prediction on global warming, many corporation likely remain skeptical, including oil companies. If scientists could retrieve more data on global warming, then all doubts would be erased, and the entire world would cooperate on global warming, not just America. The United States is important, but only the entire international community can stop global warming and keep the Earth in good condition, not only for the population, but also for future generations that will follow.