Monday, December 21, 2009

Developing Nations: Moral Obligation or None of America’s concern

Last week President Obama addressed the group meeting in Copenhagen on Climate Change debate. President Obama challenged the group, "So the question before us is no longer the nature of the challenge – the question is our capacity to meet it." I disagree with Obama on the nature of our challenge as recent studies on CO2 effects are not as the climate change group believes it to be. The recent study on Aspen trees displayed positive effects on tree growth and Dr. Park noted that the oceans with adequate forestation and biomass are absorbing excess CO2. To me it appears that Mother Earth is doing was she always does; finds balance. Now, this does not mean that we are not absolved from making it easier on Mother Earth.

Deforestation trends needs to be reversed. President Obama continued his apology tour when he said, "As the world's largest economy and the world's second-larger emitter, America bears our share of responsibility in addressing climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility." Does that responsibility mean raiding our coffers in giving developing countries $100 billion? If the Obama is serious about America doing our part then let's do it. We are not responsible for developing countries nor are we obligated. That being said, let's focus internally and implement a new energy policy where nuclear power is front and center. President Obama alluded that "changing the way that we produce and use energy is essential to America's economic future – that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industry, keep us competitive and spark new innovation." While Obama is correct that the "green" push will create new industry and innovation it will only replace current energy jobs at a rate of 1 to 2. On the surface moving toward solar and wind power will create new jobs, it will result in a net loss as per a recent report from King Juan Carlos University (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0).

The result of Obama showing up in Copenhagen cost Americans $10 billion a year pledge to assist developing countries and a non-binding agreement among countries to reduce carbon emissions. Last week I brought up the point that humans contribute, personally, more than the total fossil fuel burned on an annual basis. Since humans exhale more CO2 collectively than fossil fuels then why on Earth would we want to help developing countries as the more industry a country obtains the larger the population required to run it. People who peddle climate change say that Earth is on an unsustainable path to a reducing food supply and drought. Okay, so again, why do we, as Americans, want to assist developing nations? Increasing the world's population will only place more burdens on our food and water supply. Or is there a moral obligation on the part of America? I do applaud President Obama for going to Copenhagen and not turning over the keys though.