Illustration by Earl Larrabee

History was made by the 109th Congress on the 22nd of June. For the first time the Senate officially recognized the growing threat of global warming, declaring that action must be taken to address this problem by approving the resolution “Sense of the Senate on Climate Change.” Going against the administration’s policy of voluntary emission reductions, the Senate stated that mandatory cuts should be implemented to curb industrial pollution.

On that same day, another resolution was offered by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) that actually presented quantifiable limits on the emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, which effectively trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere. Called the “Climate Stewardship Act,” the measure, despite being far less stringent than the demands of the bitterly contested Kyoto protocol, was rejected by Senators who apparently can’t keep their opinions straight.

Susan Bonicillo Columnist

Flip-flop much anyone?

One would think that especially after this election year, the politicians would be more wary of being guilty of this sin of the flip-flop, but the voting record suggests otherwise. The inconsistency in advocating mandatory emission cuts while at the same time rejecting measures that set actual limits reflects the growing consensus that the U.S. government is content in its complacency, paying lip-service to the problem rather than enacting real, meaningful change. This Vatican-like slowness in response to the pressures of a changing world reflects poorly on the world’s leading superpower, a nation with the means and ability to effect significant change on the rest of the world. The fact that the U.S. has recognized the importance in addressing this issue is an embarrassment; our progress, or lack thereof, in stark contrast to programs already implemented by other developed countries, such as the U.K. and Germany.

Buoyed by the findings of a handful of skeptics, the Bush administration acknowledges a connection between global warming and human impact but still maintains that the connection between global warming and human causes is shaky and calls for more research to be done (at least a decade’s worth) before committing to a foreign treaty like the Kyoto protocol.

In contrast, the majority of the scientific community, ranging from the UN-created Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to independent researchers from institutions across the country like Harvard and our own University of Arizona, all attest that human influence is accelerating the effects of a warming climate, resulting in widespread famine, drought, and loss of property among other consequences. Then again, the current administration has a habit of overlooking obvious evidence of impending disaster.

Now, exactly two weeks after these climate resolutions in Congress, the member

nations of the G-8will meet today in Scotland. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, current president of the G-8, has placed the plight of Africa and global warming as his most important issues to address. Aided by the Live 8 concerts and celebrity recognition, the suffering of Africans has been at the forefront for just cause. An unfortunate consequence, though, results in the issue of global warming taking a back seat in light of this media blitz. Poorer nations, just like those in Africa, will continue to suffer, their well-being linked to climatic changes; famine will be exacerbated by low crop yield, coastal communities will be destroyed due to rising sea levels, illness will spread as warmer temperatures encourage disease-carrying insects to flourish in more expansive lands.

The operative word to use in this problem is “global.” Despite the technologically advanced status that the United States enjoys, we nonetheless will suffer from severe climate change just like our less developed counterparts. Evidence suggests that if the world continues to go unchecked at its current rate of emissions, the world will warm with an increase ranging from 3.6 to 12.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the American West by 2100. Granted, in the midst of a Tucson summer, the difference of a few degrees may not seem like much of a difference now. But the catastrophic climate change that scientists predict will happen spells severe consequences, especially for Arizonans. To put it in perspective, residents of Arizona will experience, among other things, worsened drought conditions due to decreased snowpack in the Colorado River Basin, and our needs for water will be met only 59 to 75 percent of the time. EPA findings predict that the production of wheat will decrease by an enormous 70 percent. The drier weather will make the conditions perfect for an increased spread in wildfires. The damage to the state’s economy and land will be tremendous unless immediate action is taken.

The course of action that President Bush will recommend involves more research for alternative sources of energy and carbon sequestering, yet still no calls for setting mandatory limits on carbon emissions. There are several problems with this plan: alternative energy like solar and wind power is highly inefficient and is not a reliable or feasible source of energy for a power grid. Nuclear energy and hydroelectric power are more efficient but just as detrimental to the environment and human health. Carbon sequestering, an afterburner concept involving burying carbon underground instead of releasing it into the atmosphere, is becoming a viable solution but can only accomplish so much. It is a technology that is still in development, and the facilities to accomplish such a task have yet to be created. Using this method would be like putting a band-aid to a bullet wound. Sequestering is a fix, albeit marginal in effect.

If we continue at our current rate, the problem will be compounded and almost beyond repair. Making mandatory emission cuts is the most immediate and effective solution. The President emphatically stated his commitment to protecting U.S. interests as his overriding sentiment during the G-8 summit. If he wishes to keep this promise, then the President should realize the danger of complacency and take a far more proactive stance toward reversing the trend of climate change. Despite the fact that many of us live in urban environments, and the divorce of man from nature seems more and more complete, we are still at nature’s mercy. The delusion that humans are in control has to come to an end. The burgeoning crisis of climate change brings us to the reality that we can impose our will on nature for only so long before it starts to fight back.

Susan Bonicillo is a senior majoring in English and creative writing. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.