“Saving the world?”
So many people declare that they want to “save the world!” A candidate for Miss Universe declared that to be the main purpose of her life, a candidate for the presidency announced that to be his top priority goal after the election, et cetera. Recently, 219 congressmen who voted in favor of the Waxman-Markey energy bill H.R. 2454 on Friday seemed to be driven by the best intentions of making this planet a better place to be as well.
Ambitions to save the world are always dominant for big political figures. However, politicians generally represent their constituents—or at least make an attempt—and their interests locally may be at odds with what is best for the world as a whole.
The Obama administration announced that Waxman-Markey will make the world cleaner and better by reducing pollution and the risk of global warming. But if their intention is to protect the world, then why is the American federal government the only beneficiary of “border adjustments?” If the main purpose of Waxman-Markey is to get the largest CO2-emitting countries to “contribute equitably to the reduction of greenhouse gas,” then why is the U.S. going to collect the fees and payments from the rest of the world?
It is pretty surprising that the international community has yet to begin demanding answers. Perhaps they are still reading the 1,500-page bill? Well, the consequences will influence everyone, so maybe it is time to start reading before it reaches the Senate floor.