Its not easy being green...

In class during our discussion of global warming, the environment, and climate change, I thought that these ideas was a real threat to realism. It appears that climate change is affecting the international system by promoting either collective action and complex interdependence (liberal approach) or a set of norms and transnational activism (constructivist approach). So it seems that realism either does not have too much to say about the new norm of “going green” or that the theory is severely hurt by state’s participation in the recent climate change summit, where a President who was once skeptical about the very existence of global warming, conceded that the country must stop an increased production of greenhouse gases by 2025. This appears to be a big win for constructivists, because there is a huge norm which centers around being eco-friendly. But President Bush’s proposal for change demonstrates two things: that eliminating green house gases is difficult and that realism still matters.
The President is receiving wide spread criticism because his actions are believed to be “too little to late” (in the words of Democratic congressman Rahm Emanuel) or “grossly insufficient” (in the words of a Sierra Club representative). At first glance it does sound like the President’s call for reform is pretty weak (I mean its only 2008). But the changes that need to be made to bring about the desired reforms, alternative fuel research, and stopping the expansion of power industry emissions require research and new technology. Climate change takes a lot of time and a lot of money. Furthermore, although being green is cool (thank you Angelina Jolie and Al Gore), it remains to be seen if the majority of the American public has bought into the sacrifices that need to be made to actually become green: buy a Prius and expensive light bulbs, recycle, take shorter showers, plant a tree ect. This idea transitions nicely into why realism still matters. The hindrance to American supported change in the international community is the need to protect the US economy. Bush said, “The wrong way is to unilaterally impose regulatory costs that put American businesses at a disadvantage with their competitors abroad, which would simply drive American jobs overseas and increase emissions there.” Furthermore, the US will only buy into these agreements if other countries, ie China, buy into them as well. Power still matters, and the United States will not make these changes unless other countries do so as well. I don’t think this decision is a reaction to the possibility to increasing emissions abroad, a norm, or collective action but evidence that the United States does not want to promote global climate change at the expense of its economic power, nor does it want to give other countries a free ride which allows them to reap the benefits of US changes without making any of their own. To quote Kermit the Frog, “Its not easy being green,” especially when you are the only state who is.
Here's some news articles where I got various quotes/info from:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/17/climate.conference.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/16/bush.climate/index.html?iref=newssearch