Post
Is the UN Summit More Important than a Healthcare Overhaul?
When Obama first got into office, he had a plan for the year: cram an economic stimulus package through congress, cure the nation’s healthcare ills and, finally, get an energy and environment bill through the system in time for the December UN Summit. By such a method, the US could avoid another Kyoto Protocol cop-out by going into the talks with an internal agreement.
But, now, it’s October and there is still little sign of energy bill passage on the horizon. According to the headline article of yesterday’s New York Times, Obama “is deeply committed to passage of a climate bill this year.” But I just don’t know how he’s going to pull it off – my nation’s policy-makers are still deadlocked in a debate on one of the most controversial issues they’ve had to face in a while. Unless some significant action is taken now, it seems there are really only two possible “green” outcomes: Obama keeps using the Environmental Protection Agency (as illustrated in the NY Times article) to strictly enforce ineffective rules or he gets an ineffective "greenwash" bill through congress after a couple of weeks of deliberation that doesn’t help in the summit.
I’m just wondering: did we set our priorities right, here? I mean, both of these issues seriously need to be addressed but wouldn’t it have been more effective to address the climate issue at the time when almost all the nations of the world will meet to draw up an agreement on it? And, god knows, if there’s another US cop-out this summit, China and India will not be on board and the next 20 years will be characterized by a failure of nations to act cohesively to secure their future.
Being conflicted on this issue and finding biases of everyone around me, I sought an outside opinion – all the way from Denmark, in fact. I must admit my mind has been opened by an interview I had with Danish sustainability expert and Assistant professor with a PhD in transportation, Malene Freudendal-Pedersen. Just watch these clips from my interview with her:
Opinion of a Danish Sustainabilty Expert on US Healthcare vs. Climate Bill
I must say that I am a bit shocked to see a sustainability expert from the developed world’s heartland of environmental consciousness say that the US should tackle the healthcare issue at the risk of a plan for the summit. However, she’s got a good point – the less people think about their own health, the more they think about issues larger than themselves. And, heck, a good healthcare system might actually be more effective at making the world more sustainable than all the nations of the world trying to make a quota of carbon cuts.
Comments
Once the healthcare debate blew up in the Obama administration’s face in late summer, I knew that it would be impossible for them to get a quality energy/climate bill through Congress before the end of the calendar year. There is one primary reasons for this.
Health care is a much more salient issue to American citizens and politically salient issue to American politicians. Why is this? In this great financial recession, the increasing costs of healthcare are being felt more sharply than before. Hence, the American people will want it to be addressed before climate change. Additionally, there are a LOT of groups that have a vital interest in any healthcare reform legislation. While there might be a lot of groups interested in a climate bill, they don’t have anywhere near the political or financial resources to compete with health interests. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent by these interest groups to lobby the American people and Congress.
The US government is far more likely to act on issues that the American people are passionate about (and that affect their wallets/votes) than on issues that are considered to be ‘right’ or ‘moral.’ I also think that in order to pass a solid and effective climate change bill, the Obama administration would have to spend a lot more political capital - resources which it doesn’t have thanks to the prolonged healthcare debate.
The energy sector in the United States is among the most heavily subsidized in the nation. As such, they also have incredibly powerful and wealthy lobbies that will fight any climate change legislation that will hurt them financially or require them to significantly alter their business practices.
Generally, I think Obama was expecting to be able to implement half of his whole agenda in a whirlwind first year and change how Washington operates. Simply put, the forces for the status quo and opposition are stronger than he anticipated. It takes time to create consensus. Achieving a climate change bill that will radically change the way people will have live and operate their businesses takes time, money, and a great deal of persuasion. But I don’t think we’ll have much of anything to bring to the table in Copenhagen by December. The US government does not operate on the same timetable as the rest of the world - and certainly not around global summits.
I am trying to think for a multidisciplinary studies major that i have come up with concentrating in health care.men’s health
Don’t forget that we are during one time when the major innovations are stronger than the decisions of States.