‘Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter’…

These were the words that came out of George Bush’s mouth before he left the 2008 G8 summit.

President Bush, well known for his notorious “Bush-isms”, made the joke earlier this week at the summit. One could argue that, considering the President promised to “seriously consider” the 50% carbon emission cut that was proposed, he may have been having a chuckle to himself. However, when you consider his past stance on the issue, one might say he was being serious, almost as if he was proud of what he was saying.

Okay, so perhaps putting words into the President’s mouth is uncalled for (insert cheap gag here); but it is widely known how Mr. Bush feels about climate change. If you also consider the fact that he won’t be President for much longer, he can “seriously consider” anything he wants, but nothing will come of it - after all, he didn’t actually sign it.

And so another G8 summit goes by with nothing to show for it, save a pathetic effort at trying to save the environment… and pathetic it is, for if America doesn’t sign on, no major developing country will either. Both China and India refused to sign the agreement on the basis that the US refused to do the same - and who can blame them? These are countries that have suffered economically for so long, and now they are both quite literally booming; but this boom can only be served by an industrial growth, which in turn causes pollution.

The US, arguably the world’s most ‘advanced’ nation (not technologically, and either way, Japan will give them a run for their money), is already the biggest polluter, per person. Although countries like India and China cause the most pollution per country, when you divide that by how many people live in those countries, it’s still not as large as North America.

So, when these countries want to progress, and they’re told to cut their emissions - what would make them comply, especially if the country causing the most pollution in the world won’t commit to anything?

We all know, that at the end of the day, it all comes down to money. Bush, who is tied to oil companies, has no desire to back something that’s going to see his investments fail. The US as a country has such a large investment in oil, that some conspiracy theorists are saying that the government is deliberately holding back the production of environmentally friendly cars just so they can make more money from oil. When cars no longer use petrol, and electricity is clean and safe to use, what will the government tax to bring that money back in?

Governments and pollution have a love/hate relationship. They may not like having pollution around, but they need it to make their money. In the UK, there is a tax of about £0.70 per litre on car fuel. The tax is to deter people from using cars. But let’s say that tomorrow, everyone decided to walk to work, or use bikes, and there was no fuel sold - how would the government get all that money that they would have got in fuel taxes? How would they fund the Health service if everyone stopped smoking and drinking? Okay, so it’s going off topic, but the government relies on taxing the very things that people cannot live without - but the money’s coming back to the State, so it’s okay… right?

Well, in the case of smoking, or drinking, or food, then yes, one could say it was acceptable.

But with cutting down carbon in the atmosphere, it’s a bit different. If people still smoked, or went binge drinking, it’s totally fine. It’s really just affecting one, two, maybe three people. But if we, as a planet, continue to pump dangerous gases into the atmosphere, there’s a very high chance, that there won’t be much of a population left to tax.

What’s happening is that governments are so sure that ‘the faeces’ will not hit the fan in their lifetime, so it’s fine to ignore it, keep making money, stay popular, and let the next generation deal with it. If you thought about it, you can see why they want to do that - to implement radical carbon emission plans overnight, or even over ten years, will have a huge effect on the economy of any country.

You also have to think, that if one country uses less oil, it’s more oil for another to purchase - which is another reason why the lesser developed countries will not sign an agreement unless the developed countries do.

There is no way a carbon reduction plan can work unless every government on this planet come together, stop acting like children, and look at the bigger picture. You won’t have much of a country left to govern once the ice melts - and this is to America most of all - In the predictions, Manhattan Island is one of the most susceptible places to flooding from melting ice caps - can you really afford to lose that financial hub? What affect would that have on the economy? We saw what happened to the stock market on 9/11 - what would happen if the entire island was under water? President Bush, would that have a) more, or b) less of an affect on the country than sucking it in and reducing carbon emissions? Don’t answer yet Mr. President, let me give you time to “seriously consider” it.

We do what we can on a small level. We can recycle, we can attempt to cut down travelling, we can even stop going on holiday - but until the governments force the large industrial companies to take it easy, our efforts are going to be wasted. We have to save the world, but we can only do it together.

If you’re short on tax money - how about taking a break from invading other countries? Just a thought.