Bush, the Climate, and Darth Vader

According to the article, the Bush Sr. Administration was reluctant to sign the Kyoto Protocol in part because of concerns that it resembled a form of “foreign aid”—a politically sensitive move during a period of economic recession, when public attention was more focused on domestic struggles and the Persian Gulf War. President Bush was worried about even attending the UNFCCC for fear he would receive more criticism during an election year. When did he attend them, he was called the “Darth Vader” of the meetings (180). Furthermore, in these meetings, President Bush expressed an unwillingness to provide developing countries broad forms of funding which would allow them to reduce their emissions and encourage sustainable development. In addition to concerns about broad forms of foreign aid, the Bush administration also worried about spending large amounts of money in order to reduce greenhouse emissions as a whole. If science turned out to be wrong about limiting or reducing greenhouse emissions, the Bush administration wanted to have “no regrets” about the amount of money they spent on it (183). Bush also opposed the potential increase in taxes that the plan would impose, as he ran his campaign under the promise that he would create no new taxes.    

I believe that even though multilateral cooperation is necessary for lower emissions, the United States government is still resistant to international agreements on climate change because they are resistant to agreements that have the potential to limit their unencumbered economic growth and development. I don’t believe that the United States is inherently opposed to environmental policy, but transforming domestic commitments and restrictions into binding international agreements makes such policies a much harder sell politically. For many Americans, I think the idea of politically binding international agreements is in conflict with the free, independent, and powerful vision of America that they possess. Additionally, I think that many Americans perceive the amount of money that America would have to fund in comparison to other developing nations as unfair and too costly. Many people may wonder why they are paying more money to fix a universal problem than citizens of other developing countries. Lastly, I believe that most Americans do not experience the direct impacts of human-caused climate change in a significant way, which can lead them to view the issue as less urgent or even irrelevant. Why spend money and resources on what feels like a nonissue when those resources could be spent fixing problems that directly impact citizens? I do believe, however, that this last point is changing with time, as massive weather events and significant environmental catastrophes are on the rise.