United States – White House Carbon Emissions Reduction Rule

August 4, 2015

By Padmini Arhant

President Barack Obama announcement on rule to curb green house gas pollution from power plants is a positive step and deserves national and international cooperation for formidable climate treaty.

The proposition targeting carbon emission from coal plants and automobile industry is one aspect of environment protection scheme.

However, environment hazards are multi-faceted and accordingly involve diverse industrial groups besides federal and state governments within nation.

United States energy consumption remaining significantly higher amongst industrialized nations, the variation in objectives and standard on containing and decreasing carbon emission across the country result in net negative trend and discrepancy in national tally in improving performance.

The plan encompassing basic formula applicable to all with necessary modifications depending on pollution output would be a viable option.

The White House anticipation in cutting carbon emission around 32% by 2030 alongside extending renewable energy from current 5% to 35% in that timeframe is feasible with efficient strategy across the spectrum for impact.

Unfortunately, the U.S. administration dual track in opposite directions confining specific fossil fuel division to environmental law while allowing access to oil companies for deep water drilling despite devastating experience creates huge credibility issue.

British Petroleum (BP) oil spill in Gulf of Mexico in 2010 continues to be major environment disaster.

Please double click and click again on the illustration to view content.

In the backdrop of environment catastrophe in continental shelf from offshore drillings, the Obama administration approval of Shell Corporation to drill in Arctic juxtaposed White House latest proposal on limiting carbon emission is a direct contradiction posing hindrance in environment goals.

The White House conflicting positions could deter potential achievements not only on lowering carbon emission but also in different areas related to environmental cause.

Furthermore, the existing environment conditions exacerbated from relentless warfare using artilleries, ammunitions, grenades, Improvised Explosive Devices (IED), landmines, chemical weapons against Syria, missiles in Yemen, Libya, nuclear component viz. depleted uranium in Iraq, white phosphorous in Gaza and drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Mali and Colombia…to name a few in contemporary practice.

The pragmatic approach to environment problems is to end conflicts in the Middle East, Central Asia, South East Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa and Latin America.

The death and destruction from conventional wars and terrorism has produced outbreaks of diseases controlled earlier spreading into neighboring parts of the region.

The warzones endure grave economic and environment woes with population facing serious health complications due to toxicity and contamination of water as well as air pollution from lethal weapons and terror operatives gross violations inflicting maximum damage.

United States led coalition funding and arming terror networks in Syria, Libya and Iraq contributing to massive casualties and bloodshed not to mention refugees in millions represent humanitarian and environment calamity.

Unless there is recognition to this effect amongst sponsors of terrorism and military interventions prompting them to ceasefire and permanent conclusion to wars, the measures towards environment programs would not have universal benefit.

Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa, Latin America and oppressed citizens worldwide forced into perpetual suffering depriving them from normal existence.

Planet preservation to sustain life is no longer a choice but necessity with departure from military aggression and terror infiltration to destabilize nations for dominance.

Above all nuclear disarmament of P5+1 and remaining nuclear states is paramount to guarantee global peace and security in the immediate term and future.

The architects and catalysts promoting wars and terrorism together with opponents to environment laws share responsibility in denying safe and healthy habitat to inhabitants of earth.

Safeguarding environment is a collective duty with individual participation making life possible on earth.

Peace to all!

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Environment, Featured 

Comments

Got something to say?

You must be logged in to post a comment.