the Environment

The environment has become nowadays more than an ideological question; it is now a matter of survival. Indeed, most scientists argue that the North Pole ice will melt, flooding the entire surface of the earth; that oil wells will dry in 50 years and we are the last generation that can do something to save the planet. Therefore, Governments must do something, especially the U.S. that refused to ratify the Kyoto Agreement contrary to French government. Actually, environment is one of the cause of the anti-Americanism in Europe in general, and in France in particular. I have been living in the U.S. for 9 months now, and the way U.S. individuals and politicians cope with this issue is different compared to where I come from.
France efforts to reduce the human footprint on earth are far more significant than the U.S. The French were very shocked when the U.S. refused to sign the Kyoto agreement. French consider Americans as energy wasters who damage the Earth with their energy-inefficient cars, the absence of efficient public transportation in cities, the absence of a real passenger train network and waste of energy in houses, etc. France discharges 3 times less CO2 per inhabitant than the USA: 8 tons per inhabitant per year compared to 24 tons for the United States of America. This phenomena is due mainly to: The importance (almost 80%) of nuclear power plants in the production of electricity in France; the much lower gas consumption of European cars; the more energy-efficient urban development (less urban sprawl) in Europe; the much less waste of energy in housing (heating, air-conditioning) and much better systems of public transport: fast trains, subway, street cars, car pool. I am going to emphasize on this last point, because it is the most striking difference I have noticed as a student. As such, the MBTA network has to be developed. Waiting before two bus is too long; people have to wake up earlier just to wait for the bus often in the cold. For instance, an American student living in Beverly, and attending Salem State University told me when I was interviewing him, that one of the reasons why he had to get a car at any cost was because moving from Beverly to Salem was too hard. He had to take two bus and the waiting time between two buses was too long. Worse, at the connection, he had to wait for a long time before getting on the second bus. With that kind of timetable he said, it is impossible for students to reach school and work place conveniently. They thus need to get a car in order to be truly mobile. This guy arguments are totally understandable and I think that I would have thought the same way if I were in the same position. In fact, when I was in France, I was living far away from my university. The difference is the fact that over there, I mean in Lyon the common transportation are very developed. The French government, to encourage people developed the public transportation with more subway and buses lines at this point that, people to get around in cities mostly use the public transportation instead of cars. First of, it is more convenient (more fast, no parking problem, a subway station almost every where) and less expensive. For example, I was at about 10 miles far from my University but I only needed half an hour and a 2.5€ pass for the commute. Compared to the fifty minutes ones needs to reach Salem from Beverly,(less than 5 miles) it is merely disproportionate.
In France, everything starts and ends with taxes: there is a strong trend toward generalizing specific taxes to finance the elimination of potentially polluting products. They already exist for cars (bonus/malus: a premium or a tax depending on the energy efficiency, up to thousand of Euros), on packaging, on electronic devices, on batteries, etc... There is even a tax on paper plates and plastic glasses ("picnic tax"). For the few that I know from my short experience in the U.S, I have not seen any political party caring about environment or any government bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions44. However, several political parties campaign at a national level on environmental issues in France. Even though they are weak and divided, the three most significant (the Green (les Verts), Cap 21 (less politically oriented) and José Bové (associated with extreme Left-wing)) represent almost 3 or 4% of the vote altogether. For example, U.S. government did not give dissuasive fines to the company (BP) responsible for the oil leak in Louisiana. If that were in France, the company would have got fined for ever day retard on bridging the leak. In addition, they would have been prosecuted by the inhabitants, and environmental associations and political parties.

United States Government, at the image of French Government could create a new tax like” Carbon Tax “ in which your taxes are proportional to your CO2 emissions. It will bring people choose their car size according to their real needs. They can at the same time, encourage car manufacturers or industries in researching and developing green products.They can finally create a kind of bonus for green cars, then people who buy environmentally friendly cars such as hybrid cars, could get a tax return on their car. Taxing constitutes the dissuasive component of the process; completed with incentive measures (Ratifying the Kyoto agreement, developing common transportation, more political parties involved in environment) it would get American be more concerned about environment and thereby reduce the human negative footprint on the earth. American and Chinese (the two countries discharging the biggest amount of waste on the earth) efforts coupled with the other countries should help humanity overcome this capital issue. As scientists argue, it is only all together that we will go over this issue; neither only few governments nor isolated actions could go over this capital issue.