"Human activities, including the burning of fossil fuels, are increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG's). These changes are projected to change regional and global climate, and climate related parameters such as temperatures, precipitation, soil moisture, and sea level. Because of the large amount of fossil fuels being burned today, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have grown from about 280 parts per million in 1900, to over 370 parts per million in 1998. It is increasing at 0.4% per year and is expected to double during the next century."[2].
In general, American political leadership is not up to the task of global environmental leadership. This is because we are the beneficiaries of the "boom" end of the "boom and doom" which is hitting the world as a whole. The "doom" end of this equation is falling on weak economies and vulnerable ecologies in the Third World. Our sense of environmental ethics has not expanded to include the countries which we intrude upon carelessly. This is why it is vitally important to press political leaders to realize their moral obligations, not just to constituents or their own citizens, but also as statesmen to the world and future generations.[1].
Environmentalism vs. Development is the greatest problem facing us. Clearly there is a difference between environmentalism and development. It used to be possible to feel comfortable in favoring "development at all costs." Now that we have seen the environmental damage (and therefore the environmental costs to future generations) of some development strategies, it is clear that "development", as classically defined in terms of the increase in personal income, is not sufficient for environmentalists. A new kind of development needs to be envisioned, one that can relate meaningfully to "learning to live sustainably in place." Sustainability may well become the new measure of what we really mean by development.
