By Kayla Walker
Sixty-eight percent of Americans would support an international treaty requiring the United States to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 90 percent by the year 2012, according to a poll published by Yale University on Oct. 1.
Fifty percent of respondents stated they are personally worried about global warming-15 percent of whom declared to be worried "a great deal." Forty percent of those who responded said a presidential candidate's position on global warming will strongly influence how they vote in the 2008 election.
Clearly, our nation is coming to the realization that a united attack must be made to stop global warming. (Thank you, Al Gore).
However, despite his constituency's thoughts on the subject, President Bush skipped out on the United Nations' global warming discussion last Monday. Instead, he focused on his own meeting from Sept. 27-28 with world leaders to discuss the issue.
Although the meeting, which included the Group of 8 as well as rapidly industrializing nations like China and India, held a lot of promise, it failed to deliver the sort of solutions that the international community-and America-had hoped for.
At the U.N. session that Bush decided not to attend, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told delegates, "Today, the time for doubt has passed."
The meeting was designed to lay the foundation for negotiations on a succeeding agreement to the 1997 Kyoto Protocal, the international treaty the U.S. opted out of that would have mandated the U.S. cut its emissions by only 7 percent by 2012.
At his session on Sept. 28, Bush said that the countries with the largest carbon dioxide emissions should set goals for reducing emissions but failed to suggest specific goals. Rather, Bush said, "Each nation must decide for itself the right mix of tools and technologies to achieve results that are measurable and environmentally effective." He also said that such goals should be voluntary for nations, in contrast to the efforts the U.N. will make in the current General Assembly session.
Well, that's great that Bush is finally acknowledging global warming and that he suggested there is a correlation between it and carbon dioxide emissions, but I'm still waiting for a plan of action.
Apparently, I'm not the only voter waiting for a U.S. plan. The Yale University study also found that 85 percent of respondents support requiring auto makers to increase fuel efficiency of cars to 35 miles per gallon, even if it would increase the cost of a car by $500.
Eighty-two percent of those polled support requiring electric utilities to produce as little as 20 percent of their electricity using renewable energy sources, even if that would increase the average household cost by $100 a year.
Americans are already willing to participate in a solution while the current administration struggles to construct one. Perhaps we'll have to look for direction in state leaders.
In February 2007, California, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico and Arizona started the Western Climate Initiative, building on existing state programs designed to decrease greenhouse-gas emissions.
Since then, Utah and the Canadian provinces Manitoba and British Columbia have joined the initiative and eight other states and provinces have agreed to observe the Initiative's efforts.
Bush and Congress should take note: on Aug. 22 the Western Climate Initiative promised to reduce its 2005 greenhouse-gas levels by 15 percent by 2020. A few weeks later they signed a letter asking the automobile industry to stop fighting tougher tailpipe-emission standards.
These are politicians that are willing to respond to the crisis caused by greenhouse gases.
As California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was invited to attend the U.N. meeting on Sept. 24 and is a founder of the Western Climate Initiative, said, "California is moving the United States beyond debate and doubt to action."
Kayla Walker is a senior print journalism student. You may e-mail her at kwalke4@pride.hofstra.edu.
(Ryan Broderick)
Kayla Walker