Haresh Daswani: USA not the worst offender after all
Column by Haresh Daswani
Submit guest columns: freepress2@ntelos.net
The general public’s opinion that the USA is the worst offender in carbon emissions might actually be misguiding. Nationmaster’s list of carbon dioxide emissions per capita presents otherwise.
While it is true that USA has the highest carbon emissions, it falls to fifth place as an offender per capita. The first four are Middle Eastern countries, with Quatar having a little more than twice the emissions per capita of USA.
Several factors have to be looked into with this study. First and foremost, third world countries will definitely have a lower carbon emissions due to lack of many luxuries and necessities. Therefore, many poorer countries barely have any carbon emissions.
There is a very high point on necessity, though. Middle Eastern countries need air conditioning all throughout the entire day, all throughout the entire year (or until before winter). But twice the level of USA is still very high. Some of the bothering questions focus on what true efforts have these countries put in establishing their commitment to a greener planet. It mostly seems like they are completely self centered to their own luxuries that continuity and sustainability has been discarded. Many projects, architectural in nature, merely showcases half-baked efforts on a truly serious offense, the abuse of natural resources.
Effort has to be put in redesigning a new society altogether. The use of large engined private vehicles is not necessary for the general public. It even becomes more feasible both for the public and the environment if environmentally efficient public transportation systems are put in place. These practices are best implemented by large cities with good metros and efficient buses.
While many points are debatable with regards to Carbon Emissions and Climate Change, one fact still remains the same, that carbon dioxide imbalance in the atmosphere causes smog and many diseases. The world is so persuasive in pushing smoking bans without realizing that the real killers have been vehicles and companies mismanaging their waste and letting everyone have a whiff of the unsavory odorless killers. There is a bigger and more taxing effect on pollution that people have to reconsider and focus on.
The world is sharing air with everyone else. We are not breathing air in our own backyards, but from the backyards of others as well. The cold winds from the winter months over the north go down to other countries, giving them a chilly icy breeze. But the same winds, if coming from a factory, carries the intoxicating effects of mercury as well. Every country has to be responsible because the effects are not isolated only to their country, but to other countries as well.
Therefore, more pressure has to be established on offending countries. If USA’s carbon emission per capita is found too high, the middle eastern countries should also be pushed and prodded to be good neighbors and bring their carbon emissions down. There has to be justice, an economic justice, not to be held hostage by addiction over black gold, and force countries to comply out of the humanistic need to live in a cleaner, greener future.
Related posts:
- Haresh Daswani | The importance of going environmental There has been some important discussions on the past on the ecological cost of any action. What is just as urgent is the climatic effect...
- Haresh Daswani: Realities of economics – overstretched credit Column by Haresh Daswani Americans apparently do not have enough money with the price of things. It would take an average American 30 years, through...
- Haresh Daswani | Students taking law into their own hands: When two nations do nothing Indian students stabbed a man in self-defense after being abused and threatened. This is not how Indians react to situations, but after 11 Indians were...
- Haresh Daswani | Upcoming Middle East crisis: Handle with care The new attack of Israel in Gaza and India’s and U.S.’s strong case against Pakistan will stir some very strong emotions amongst people radical extremists...
- Haresh Daswani | The business of terrorism For those who have not gone through the dossier that was presented about the Mumbai attacks, the observations on how organized and well-funded these organizations...
HUH? What the heck did Daswani say? He’s all over the place. “Offender”? Tries to make criminals out of everyday life operations.
“redesigning a new society”? That what the Utopians, Marxists and Fascists tried and are trying to do with a horrific cost in human life, human rights, unbridled pollution (ever seen Soviet operations in Siberia or Red China’s “Great Leap Forward” backyard manufacturing ovens”?
There is nothing wrong with controlling the release of mercury into the atmosphere from coal-burning but it will come about by technological developments probably from American scientists/engineers, not European marxists and couchpotato revolutionaries.
And Mr. Daswani wants much of the world to be concerned with “humanistic needs”? Over a third of the world in ruled by despotic, anti-humanistic communists (Red China, No. Korea, Cuba,some African countries,Russia (a red thugocracy), Eritrea, Venezuela, Ecuador,and mini-marxist ruling parties in Greece, Nepal, Nicaragua, El Salvador and possibly Argentina), among others.
Another significant part of the world is ruled by Moslem despots – Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia (or what is called Somalia),Pakistan, Libya, much of Afghanistan, some of Iraq, all of Iran, Egypt, and to lesser extents, Jordan, Morocco, Mauritania, parts of Nigeria, Chad, etc.
A more “humanistic world”? Surely you jest.
Hi Max, looks like you did not get the entire message as well as I hoped.
Try to look at media and how it portrays the United States as the worst “offender” in the field of carbon emissions. I am not tagging in the word, it is what is commonly used.
I am actually redefining the whole idea down to the PER CAPITA concept, strongly implying through this article that THERE ARE BIGGER “OFFENDERS” that people should be looking at as well, and do something.
Now, tell me, do you like your air filled with Carbon Dioxide? You might not mind, but many do. Look at health records, look at your environment, and tell me you do not mind carbon emissions in your air.
What is in the air turns to rain, and ends up in your ponds where you fish. Guess what your fish now contains as well.
If you cannot stop carbon in the air due to progress, wouldn’t it be better to have AS LESS AS POSSIBLE of it?
It is a balance between keeping the economy moving and growing, and at the same time, keeping the environment as clean as possible, if possible.
What does it take to be more eco friendly? Why do many people find it so difficult to:
1. Walk more – Not only are you doing the planet good, you’re doing your body good too.
2. Recycle – You even get paid!
3. Use Eco friendly products – would you really want to eat something that has fossil fuel oil in it?
4. Use energy and water efficient products – There are many products out there that are eco friendly and yet not be worse than a regular product. Besides, these products will cost you less to operate over time, which means, more money in your bank account.
Being eco friendly actually means putting more money in your bank account later on, if you really do think about it.
Now that I have shown the main point of why you should look into going green and better looking at the food you eat and your lifestyle, remember, this is not me pointing a finger to USA and saying that you guys have to do something, because you guys are doing something about it anyways, or at least has put in a lot of effort (many are) for it. Something might have to be done about those gas guzzlers but I think the high oil price will do that.
What I am trying to say is that all those who are pushing and prodding USA to go green should look at those whose per capita is way higher than USA. What about them?
Humanistic, is to be looked at in a holistic sense. Material goods is not the only sign of a good lifestyle, health is important as well. Do you really think that we should all close our eyes to environmental damages just so we can all afford to get an Ipod? Would you really mind paying 5 measly dollars more to make sure that they invest in becoming more responsible companies? As it is, Europe is already charging a lot for every ton of carbon a company emits. Do you know what is happening to that money? They now have more money to invest in reforestation, in developing and using technologies that would reduce carbon emissions, and even subsidize renewable energy, just to name a few of what that fund has helped. I think we should thank them for that effort, they are doing their part in making sure you are breathing oxygen and not smog.
What am I seriously asking here? That we look back and put more value in our environment without having to hamper economic growth. It is not impossible, there is always a middle ground.