Global Government Garbage

Recently in August 2022, the United States passed the largest climate bill to date. A 369 billion dollar investment in clean energy and climate change programs titled the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Though what does Inflation have anything to do with climate change? The Act does allocate money towards deficit reduction, a 300 billion dollar sum (Summary), but why keep the information misconstrued, and hidden? Citizens like myself, who are not extreme climate activists but care about our planet, will not dive deeper into the Act. Or further yet, people around the globe. What would they think when they hear the United States has passed the Inflation Reduction Act? The language being used only restricts the world’s awareness of climate change. A figure such as the United States, a global superpower, showing that they are stepping forward and working towards fixing the climate crisis would inspire, or perhaps intimidate other nations towards action. Surely it would create a mindset over climate change that would strive to hit the 1.5-degree goal set by the Paris Agreement. Yet the language used in our government restricts that ability. Instead, the language is being used to subjugate the development of climate activism. 

But to whom can this language be attributed to? In the 117th Congress of the United States, 139 of its representatives refuse to acknowledge human-caused climate change (Drennen). Moreover, this Act barely even passed. Every single republican senator voted against the Act, a 50/50 split, being broken in favor by the Vice President (Quinn). And then, 207 representatives voted against the Act in the House of Representatives (Romm). There is corruption and misinformation that is spreading throughout the United States, and having representatives who refuse to believe a general scientific consensus is dangerous to our society. No matter how much the people protest and demand change, new climate bills will be stalled as debate will flood Congress. It is allowing a global threat to develop without a response.

The United States government knew about climate change 54 years ago. “Goodbye New York,” and “Goodbye Washington” was what President Richard Nixon's advisor Daniel Patrick Moynihan told the President in a briefing about the “carbon dioxide problem”(Davenport). 54 years and only when climate change is on the brink of being permanently life-altering is when we choose to do something about it. Is it human nature to wait until the deadline? Even when that deadline may be the death and destruction of countless species and humans. Or is it due to the withdrawal of truth within the government, truths such as the contents of the Inflation Reduction Act? Perhaps that is why climate change protests have ramped up in the 2000s, not solely due to the fact that we are on the brink of collapse, but because we have gained access to resources that would not be available to us due to government censorship such as the Inflation Reduction Act.

However, this does not mean that the individual is not at fault. The United Nations article “Act Now” states: “Around two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions are linked to private households.'' Yet the Pew Research Center states that two-thirds of Americans think the government should do more about climate change (Nadeem). Even if the government chooses to enact green after-green deals, we as individuals will still need to play our part. “Act Now” further states that in order to limit climate change we must follow ten actions. Save energy, find alternative transportation, consume larger quantities of plant-based foods, travel less, throw away less food, recycle, move to renewable energy, switch to electric vehicles, and speak up. Will the two-thirds of Americans who wish the government to take larger action be happy to accept government regulation in their daily lives? If so, why have they not taken action themselves? Our atmosphere is heating, our cities are sinking, and our forests are burning, but blame is being tossed around faster than a game of hot potato. The individual blames the government for their inaction, yet the counter is that the root of the issue stems from the individual. Though who can pick and choose blame when there is a shared liability? The question of fault will never be answered truthfully. However, blame will not be at the forefront of everyone's minds when they are fighting for the last loaf of bread at a supermarket. During my quest, I saw what I thought was the accumulation of all the negligence throughout individuals and governments. The “green” label that Worcester was given seemed like more misconstrued language set by legislators. If I went on that quest again, however, I would think that Worcester now seemed like the “green” city it was advertised as. The global negligence far outweighed the bits of trash in the Worcester recycling bins.