A Google Glimpse of the Globe
By Dr. Jackson Janes

A Front-Row Seat
The recent innovation at Google Earth which allows viewers to see the sites of genocide and atrocities in Sudan demonstrates again the power of the internet in delivering some reality to our doorstep. It also is a reminder of how some people respond when they are touched in a personal way by the stories that go with the pictures and testimony of the victims.

But when does the observer feel compelled to act? When does the relevancy of murder in Darfur become significant enough for people to engage in stopping it and not just simply shake their heads and lament the misery?

Winston Churchill once said that the most exhilarating experience is to be shot at and missed. The feeling of being targeted or being vulnerable focuses the mind on how to respond more readily than if we think of ourselves only as observers. Google Earth lets us be observers of events far away from our everyday lives but in doing so is also explicitly encouraging us to do something about it. The scene from the catastrophe after the tsunami in Southeast Asia was a similar occasion for calls for help. The disaster in the wake of Katrina was another. Most people might respond and then return to their daily lives. People want to think that they have contributed to a resolution of the problem and that it will be dealt with without further involvement.

So when does the observer feel compelled to act not once but on a sustained basis? It is often the case when the observer sees himself as the target being "shot at" on a continuous basis that spurs action; in other words, we act when we know that we have a personal stake in the outcome.

The Current Target: Earth
The current debate over global warming and its consequences for the future should be a prime example of this. The debate has generated a level of consciousness which can lead to everyone on the planet seeing themselves as both target as well as culprit. During the last year alone, a combination of news reports about environmental damage in the Arctic and other places, Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth," and the continuous publication of scientific reports has focused the attention of far more people than ever before on the threat to their existence. The report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released this week, is the most definitive and grim assessment of global warming's impact to date.

The warnings are not new, but the urgency has picked up pace. Despite skeptics who remain unconvinced, the evidence of serious danger is all around us. Be they melting glaciers, collapsing animal habitats, or the increasing number of severe hurricanes, just for starters, serious debates over whether global warming has been generated by human habits that need to be changed are over. The remaining questions are: how much time do we have to react effectively before catastrophic impacts become irreparable, and who is willing to lead the challenge?

There can be no doubt that the current world's largest source of carbon emissions, the United States, ought to be in the forefront of meeting the threats facing the planet. Europe bears equal responsibility and Germany should lead the charge, given its role as the largest source of emissions in Europe. Chancellor Merkel has the issue at the top of Germany's EU Presidency agenda as well as at the G-8 Summit it will chair in June. Yet finding a consensus on how to respond to these challenges remains difficult on both sides of the Atlantic. Setting targets for reduction is one thing; achieving them is another.

Arguments over solutions have been to a large extent about whether sufficient adjustments to human behavior can be generated by creating better choices for people to cut down on carbon emissions as they lead their lives. This could be giving them a better set of efficient technologies to use, be it at home, in their cars, or in their workspace, or whether there needs to be more regulatory control put on those practices. Clearly both are needed. The Supreme Court's decision in Washington this week confirmed that by reminding the Environmental Protection Agency of the obvious: that it has a responsibility to protect the environment and that it has the regulatory authority to do so. The fact that the Bush administration has been unwilling to affirm that during the past six years was criticized by the court's majority.

Solving the Problem Constructively
Within the EU, squabbles over how to reach emissions reductions without incurring economic drawbacks resemble those in the U.S. The question looming around the debate is: how do you cut emissions and keep the economy growing? The Bush administration decided that the answer lies in developing cleaner technologies and giving incentives to use them, not only in the U.S. but particularly in those parts of the world, namely Asia, where emissions will continue to rise, given soaring energy needs, unless alternative methods of energy production and consumption are found. The EU, with Germany in the lead, is saying that legal markers and benchmarks need to be set as well if progress is going to be made anywhere.

Amidst all the political rhetoric, one can hear accusations from both sides of the Atlantic. Most recently, the debate over the UN Panel final report led to the German Minister for the Environment, Sigmar Gabriel, accusing the United States of "scientific vandalism" for trying to tone down the findings in the report.  The Bush White House in turn points out that EU emissions in the last five years have grown at double the rate of the U.S., despite the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol requirements.

As we argue about the metrics of progress, the real question is whether there can be a sufficiently high threshold of change among millions of people to make a real difference now in the way the planet will look in the future. For that to happen, people have to know why those changes are necessary and how they can be enacted. They need to understand the choices and that those choices represent a fair distribution of the burdens. As the two billion people in China and India aspire to a standard of living enjoyed in Europe and the U.S., for example, it is in all of our interests that the tools they use are most beneficial for themselves as well as for the planet.

As we move forward, the main message has to be one of the interdependence of our actions and decisions. Nationalistic conceptions of energy security, the reduction of carbon emissions, or the impact of climate change will not be able to deal with the challenges ahead as they transcend borders of all kinds.

A Google glimpse of the globe can help us look at ourselves and encourage us to move beyond just observing the problem and take action, as we all share the stakes for the future.

....................................................................................................
This essay appeared in the April 13, 2007, AICGS Advisor.

....................................................................................................
Want to know more? Check out these links for more information.

Google Earth

UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Jack Janes and Stephen Szabo Interview Dr. Friedemann Müller and Dr. Wilfrid Kohl about the challenges facing transatlantic energy policy (AICGS Podcast; requires MP3 player)

U.S. and German Approaches to the Energy Challenge (AICGS Event Summary)

Federalism in Germany and the United States: Environmental Regulatory Implications and Trends (AICGS Current Project)

U.S. and German Approaches to the Energy Challenge (AICGS Current Project)

Energy Security or Democracy Promotion? German and EU Policy Toward Russia (AICGS Current Project)