Global warming does not have political ties

On most mornings, I leave my apartment looking forward to the day ahead of me. I swing open the front door and mount my bike, eager to ride through campus on a beautiful Southern California day. That is, until I notice a haze dulling the morning sky. Alas, I try to convince myself that it’s just another day in Los Angeles.

Perhaps three semesters at USC has acclimated me to the infamous L.A. smog. Before coming to USC, I’d never seen auto shops offer smog check services. Now, it’s common to notice a smog check sign on a corner, though it is more often than not partially obscured by a layer of smog. Yet when I return to my suburban Texas hometown or visit other cities, I find that I simply can’t accept that smog is normal. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Southern California smog levels exceed health standards for more than 80 days a year. No wonder.

In a new study published by Nature, springtime winds from South and East Asia carry substantial smog-causing ozone to the Western United States. This cross-border pollution has dramatically affected both industrial and rural regions of the Pacific United States. In our case, it only worsens the air quality and spoils the otherwise pleasant bike rides to class.

Last December’s United Nations climate change talks held in Copenhagen was a hopeful first step taken by the international society to combat climate change and deforestation — problems that have long been unattended to. However, it concluded on a tenuous note. The Copenhagen Accords, released this week, seeks to tie up loose ends. Its goal is to prevent global warming from increasing beyond a 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit rise from levels in pre-industrial times. More than 80 developed and developing countries signed the accord with their individual emission reduction plans, but no hard deadline for curbing greenhouse gas emissions or any enforcement provision was put in place.

Daily Trojan | Andrew Laskowski

The United States’ goal is to cut emissions in the range of 17 percent from levels five years ago. China, who had been taciturn and resistant in Copenhagen, signed on to a more specific agreement, promising to make sure the rate of emissions doesn’t surpass economic growth. Singapore, an influential nation that boasts the world’s second busiest port, made a similar decision, albeit one that clearly exemplifies the self-interest that governs all states in an international society. Singapore seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 16 percent below current levels but only if the other countries agree to a strong, legally binding deal.

For states, it appears the obligation to one another overrides any moral obligation, such as the duty to environmental protection.

In fact, climate change is the perfect game theory scenario: Why should country A yield to curbing greenhouse gases if country B doesn’t? Should country A compromise its industrial production and influence in order to do the morally right thing by addressing the global warming issue?

With this mindset and at this rate, it is unlikely that President Obama will see his spearheaded effort of combating climate change succeed in the near future. As Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists said, “The pledges put on the table to date do not put us on track to meet that goal and will make it very difficult for us politically and technically beyond 2020 to meet that target.”

Indeed, it’ll be interesting to see how next year’s Mexico City summit will pan out. The Copenhagen conference drafted a rudimentary outline of each country’s emission goals ­­— but next year’s delegations will have the challenge of filling in the gaps that were too large to tackle in Copenhagen.

It is said that ingenuity is born of necessity. If this isn’t an urgent, much-needed point in our history, then I don’t know what is. If we can feel the negative byproduct of human activity and other sources of climate change wafting over from across the Pacific Ocean, it must be a sign that climate change is a pressing global concern.

So at this urgent time, what we need is some kind of ingenuity to redefine the model of how the international society of states, or of organizations or people, perceive production, development and progress. Is there not a way to thrive as developed or developing countries while respecting the environment? Perhaps we have just been functioning too long in this age-old outlook of leaving the environment at the bottom of our priorities that we don’t realize we could rethink the model.

Converting to a Greenpeace activist is not the solution. An applied realization that we have a moral obligation to the planet is not only a responsible act but it could also help to overcome the frustrating impasse encountered repeatedly by states.

Nadine Tan is a sophomore majoring in business administration. Her column “World Rapport” runs Fridays.