The invasion of Iraq brought to a head a new wave of anti-American feeling around the world. In cartoon terms, the European charge is that Americans are fat, trigger-happy, Christian fundamentalists, opposed to abortion, wedded to the death penalty and determined to drive the largest cars on the planet with some of the cheapest petrol.
In fact the environment is the issue which is going to give America the most trouble, because it resonates with ordinary people in so many countries. The United States does not easily see itself as the villain of the world's environment, as so many others do. Americans look around and see a green and fruitful land, less polluted, less spoiled and less inhabited than many areas of Europe or Asia, and they have a point.
The problem is climate change. America emits more greenhouse gases per person than any other country in the world. Until it was overtaken by China (roughly at the end of 2007), it emitted more than any other country overall, even though its population is just a quarter of China's. That underpins its reputation as greedy, consuming “more than its share” of the world's resources, its people refusing to compromise the world's highest standard of living to save those in poor countries from the effects of climate change. The cars two feet longer than anything you could park in London or Paris, the sport utility vehicles managing only 14 miles to the gallon - all these are brandished as evidence of America's moral failing (although critics never adjust for the smaller size of the American gallon, only 83 per cent of the size of the imperial gallon used in Britain).
There is still a lot that can be said in its defence that is lost in the insults. The first point is the depth of the environmental tradition in American culture. The American reverence for the wilderness goes back before even the explorers who pushed the frontier westwards - back to Native American culture. When I was at school in Washington DC in the 1970s, the curriculum was peppered with lectures about recycling and protecting wildlife, a good couple of decades before that became standard in British schools. “It was America that put environmentalism on the world's agenda in the 1970s and 1980s,” recalled Glenn Prickett, a senior vice-president for Conservation International. “But since then, somehow, the wealthiest and most powerful country on the planet has gone to the back of the line.”
A second point in America's favour is that the environmental laws which it passed in those decades are some of the world's toughest. The 1980 Superfund Act, a tax on petroleum and chemical industries to pay for cleaning up toxic land, and the five separate Clean Air Acts between 1963 and 1990 were very expensive for American businesses and state governments.
The US also moved quickly, when a 1976 National Academy of Sciences report found damage to the ozone layer, to ban chlorofluorocarbons from aerosols, a move resisted initially by the European Union. It was one of the driving forces behind the 1987 Montreal Protocol to ban substances damaging to the ozone layer, and in developing replacement technologies.
What is more, America enforces these laws, even if their application is challenged in court. In contrast, while the EU has been prolific in passing ambitious regulations on environmental standards, the marvel is how patchily they are enforced. The countries on Europe's southern fringe, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal - the poorer ones, before the influx of those from the former Soviet bloc - have often been treated with some lenience when they have failed to comply with laws on drinking water standards, cleanliness of beaches, the protection of wildlife habitats.
But then we come to climate change, and America has a more difficult case to make, one where, so far, it has won no worldwide sympathy. The Bush Administration did, in February 2008, say for the first time that the US would agree to be bound by limits on emissions - but only if China and India were too. But that sidesteps their main objection: that the emissions of the developed world have caused the problem and that rich countries should bear the cost of mitigating climate change.
America's best defence is that it would find it much more expensive than would other countries to make those changes to its economy, and if it did so abruptly, there would be an effect on growth that would also hurt other economies, particularly the poorest. Given its size and its reliance on road transport, it is inevitably more dependent on petrol than are smaller, more densely inhabited countries.
The Kyoto Protocol was much easier for European countries to meet, as it coincided with a shift from coal to gas-fired power stations, which immediately reduced emissions. Germany was helped by the closure of many old, dirty East German industries, which scythed through the emissions levels of a united Germany, as well as by the slow shrinkage of its ageing population. Even given those advantages, the EU has not found it easy to make the required cuts. The European Environment Agency, a Copenhagen-based think-tank, predicted in November 2007 that the 15 countries covered by the Kyoto commitment (not including those who joined since 2004), were on course to achieve only a 4 per cent cut in emissions, not the 8 per cent required.
America's proposal to research new green technologies and to export or give them to other countries is also a strong point in its favour. The speed with which it did this over ozone-damaging chemicals was dramatic. In December 2007 Bush signed into law new rules on energy efficiency in cars and houses - the Energy Independence and Security Act. That will slowly, but profoundly, effect change in America towards cars and appliances that use less fuel.
As well as these new federal efforts, some of the states have now been moving on their own to try to encourage behaviour that would reduce carbon emissions. That does not fit the stock image of America as a country which does not care about global warming.
The same phenomenon is true in all developed countries - that people are concerned about global environmental problems, but do not much want to sacrifice their own standard of living to help. It is unfair for countries which, because of the structure of their economy, find these changes easy to accuse America of entirely neglecting something it would find more difficult.
I'll add one final argument, even though I'm conscious that it drives my greenest colleagues to a point beyond anger: there is a moral value in encouraging people's mobility because it encourages their understanding of one another and their ability to work together. Americans' delight in criss-crossing their own country carries a cost in pollution but it springs from the exhilaration of the American project itself, and underpins its success.
© Bronwen Maddox 2008. Extracted from In Defence of America, to be published by Duckworth Overlook on September 11 at £12.99. Buy it for £11.69, p&p free, from Booksfirst: 0870 160 8080 or www.timesonline.co.uk/booksfirst
Tomorrow: what America can do to restore its image
anyone talking about 'global warmunists' needs to take their head out the sand, read a jeremy leggett book and apologise to the world if they happen to have been important enough to delay action. its already been a decade since conclusive evidence of a serious threat to the climatic balance....
tom, london, UK
Most Americans demand proof before action. Global warming has been debunked; and so advocates of its cause have switched to "climate change". The problem remains the same: The computer models' predictions are too often wrong. We in America do act - when given trustworthy proof.
Mike Devereaux, Dallas, USA
How can anyone belive the "sky is falling " mantra of global warmunists? Why give creadence to computer models predicting warming when those same models don't at all account for the sun, ocean currents, rain & wind? Why fix a problem that isn't there and why cede superiority for mediocrity?
paul, seattle, USA
Unfortunately the USA has not done enough. The environmental disaster which is upon us proves this point. The USA has the solar technology to enable it to produce 100% of its electricity form the sun's energy. Business interests are stopping this. Money is more important than the planet it appears.
Jim Wills, Brisbane, Australia
The USA is an environmental villian. The disasterous state of the planet's environment, and particularily the destruction of habit and decline in specie numbers, ( except of course home sapiens), proves this point. The USA is a nation of environmental terrorists. They have nothing to be proud of.
Jim Wills, Brisbane, Australia
I remember many years ago where America laid claim to the worlds first river that was declared a fire hazard. America is always right, their ego's demand it. Its a pity reality doesn't deliver it.
Udo, Melbourne, Australia
The states are usually more progressive than the federal government on environmental issues. Congress drags its feet on the issue. But we do care, and we do fight for our planet. Give us some credit for what we are still doing for it..
lawhite, Idaho, USA
The US environment has improved over my lifetime. When I was born, there were health warnings against swimming in the Hudson. Now both the Hudson and nearby rivers are teeming with life. A couple years ago, I saw a wild deer in a urban park.
Joseph, New York City, USA
Just today there is news that in August there was not a single sunspot on the sun, a phenom not seen in 100 years. This is a major development in climate study, and a strong indication that we may be entering a significant cooling phase. 'Global warming' is rubbish.
Kevin Finnerty, Atlanta, USA
Daily Tech reports on new research thatis ongoing showing that CO2 is not the issue-the Sun is the issue. Global cooling is happening. I applaud the honesty of some of the posters who admit that Global Warming is just a front for their social justice desires. Social Justice meaning totalitarianism.
Siempre, Missoula, USA
The USA 5% of the worlds population but uses 25% of the worlds resources. Each American uses more than any other person on the planet.
But it is hard to aim for less greed aaaw! We try and you don't and then when you have to go to war for oil you expect back up. Yuh like thats working for us.
Fred, Sheffield, UK
Personally I think Americans eat too much read meat and as a consequence breed too much cattle. The cows in this country produce more greenhouse gasses than the cars do.
Adrian T, Sacramento, CA, USA
Listen up nutjobs! Global warming is rapidly proving to be FALSE! Sane, rational people are realizing this. You leftists are going to have to try a different tack if you want to bring down America.
Good Luck!
Mike, Seattle, USA
As an American, I can confidently say this article is without substance. Everyone knows that the U.S. is responsible for every single problem that exists in the world today. If the U.S. did not exist, there would have been no wars, famine, disease, hunger on the planet. The shame I feel.
Dave, Atlanta, U.S
I am amazed that every discussion on the production of emissions fails to note that the US produces 25% of the world's goods and services. If you cut emissions to European standards, you will cut goods and services accordingly. This would mean a Depression on a scale of the 1930's.
Dave, Houston,
True Jim & I always add, this word 'green' has no place in conversation concerning reduction of CO2 because plants LOVE having more CO2 not less. An example of the total lie being foisted on us is an ad by GE that shows an animated tree hugging an energy efficient house . Total rubbish!
Mike M, Boston, MA, USA
Evacuating two major cities but there is no problem with the environment???? If the science is unclear better to err on the side of saving the human species ?
Kevin, Birmingham, UK
To Mindy of Oklahoma,
Speak for yourself, hun. I knew all about Bush's ties to big oil long ago. That's why i voted against the man twice. You ignorant conservatives would do yourselves a favor if you stopped ranting about some phantom "liberal media bias" and picked a damn newspaper for once!
Haile, Cleveland, USA
hey you want to stop global warming.stop breathing
kevin, phila pa , usa
James,UK
Other places in the world have had a similiar problem. The decline of bees is due to a virus.Check your sources
The truth is the USA has some of the strongest enviornmental
laws in the world. Of course, there are always those that think
they are above the law.
Natalie Kapstein, Washington, D.C., United States
Andy of London thinks the US has been carbon neutral for decades. He obviously doesn't know what a continent is, so why do I doubt he knows what carbon neutral is either? FACTS would be nice.
Diana, Derby, uk
Scientists have been backing off on man-made global warming for years now. There has not been any increase in temperatures since 1998. The left has still not gotten the message. The self-righteous, delusional socialists of Europe need to look in the mirror and ask themselves some hard questions.
Jim, Washington DC, USA
LOL--- "Darwinian fight for resources"
Mike, Ventura, CA, USA
How refreshing...an honest headline. Our 'carbon footprint' is obscene. Too long Americans have been referred to as "consumers". I am also an American.. A stand up right wing gun totting, constitution hugger who also recognizes that we have a responsibility not to suck the world's resources dry.
jggrimm, Blythe, USA
It's not true the UK has more freedom than the US. The big difference is that in the UK, freedom is stifled by a mindset that allows allows society to make decisions normally reserved in the US for individuals. That's not freedom - that's group think, and it damages UK as a society.
Daniel, New Jersey, USA
"although critics never adjust for the smaller size of the American gallon, only 83 per cent of the size of the imperial gallon used in Britain"
so 14 mpg becomes 16.9 mpg. Still pretty awful.
Andy, London, England
The U.S. was ahead of its time in creating National Parks and introducing environmental legislation. However, George W Bush has reversed a great deal of the previous good work. Obama/McCain will have his work cut out to clean up the mess left behind by the current Federal Government
Steve, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
Until a countries carbon footprint takes into account imported goods then it is all meaningless. For example i buy an electrical good made in china, the pollution should be attributed to the end user country not the producer due to supply and demand. Should also include transportation.
Russ, Glasgow,
Americans wouldn't know words like truth or honesty !? R U kidding me!? It isn't that americans have no credibility; it's that our govt has no credibility. Don't u know that the major players of Bush Admin have ties 2 either oil,defense contracts,or weapons. Yeah,neither did we when we voted. .TWICE
Mindy, Tulsa, OK, United States
''America is not an environmental villain''
I disagree and so do 10 billion dead honey bees posioned by GM corn flowers which have been modified to produce low level insecticide. Type GM and dead honey bees into the internet and read all about it.
PS There are still secret GM trials in the UK!
james, edinburgh, UK
Im from a Developing Nation!What I see all around me is people not wishing to change simply because its tradition or part of their culture. All around me people shirk from responsibilities & then they wish to transfer fault for problems in their countries, namely USA. Let each country fend for itsel
John, Kerala, India
The US as a continent has been carbon neutral for decades. But the truth has never slowed down the disingenious propagandea of Greenpeace et al. They wouldnt recognise words like truth or honesty if they fell on them! Shame as thats why they have no credibility with the majority.
andy, London,
Whilst I agree with much of Bronwen says, the US has consistently blocked attempts to introduce measures at an international level to stop illegal logging in the few remaining rainforests around the world. This must rank amongst the worst enviromental crimes of recent times!
Mark Johnson, Birmingham, UK
There is a finite amount of oil. Once its gone it will have to be made and that is expensive and time consuming. using oil irresponsibly is unforgivable and arrogant. Perhaps the citizens of the USA could think of others rather than themselves.
bob taylor, castelnau, France
It remains that if all the people of the world had the same living standards as Americans we would need three planet Earths. Now we are not going to get three planet Earths. The solution is either Americans accept a simpler lifestyle or the world will enter a brutal Darwinian fight for resources.
keith Bentham, Wigan, uk
All of this only has any meanineg if you accept the premise of Man-made global warming and climate change.
After ten consecutive years of global cooling despite record carbon output and a glance at climate history, one would suppose sane, intelligent people would not.
John Bowman, Sarlat, France
Bill, Yorktown, It may come as quite a shock to you but there are other nations that enjoy just as much freedom as the US so give it a rest huh? You're not helping.
Brian, Leeds, I live in the US and I haven't been on camera once today. Can you say the same? Perhaps you're not as free as u think.
C. Heathcote, New Jersey, USA
I'm impressed... I didn't think you could write such profound arguments and sell it 13 pounds... Going for the american patriot market yeah?
marcel, chicago, USA
Seeing that we are all made of carbon, the time will come when people will look back on the carbon phobia of the early 21st century as too incredible to be believed
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
Sam, NYC, USA
Brad & Brian - you 2 are absolutely right. The first time I went to the UK I was genuinely amazed by how laid back & free the country is. As an American, travelling outside the US opens one's eyes to the fact that the US doesn't have the most liberty. Only ignorantly blind patriots ignore this fact.
Eric Penner, Laguna Niguel, CA, USA
The modern environmental movement arose out of the wreckage of the New Left. They call themselves Green because they're too yellow to admit they're really Reds. So Lenin's birthday was chosen to be the date of Earth Day.
Global Warming has become the new religion & Al Gore is their prophet.
Sam, NYC, USA
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister
Sam, NYC, USA
Ms. Maddox -
I read your book. My criticism is that it fails to challenge basic assumptions:
(1) Does Global Warming exist? (2) If so, is it a natural occurance? (3) Does Kyoto do anything to 'solve' it? (4) Can or should it be solved at all? (5) Is it possible Europeans are wrong?
Kuchlenz, Fort Lewis, Washington, USA
Bill from Yorktown - for your information, people in Britain enjoy far greater freedom and civil liberties than most people in the United States. You could even see for yourself. It's called travel. Try it; you'll like it.
Brad, London, England
Hey Bill - hate to tell you, but Brits enjoy way more freedom than your lot. Take a trip here and see for yourself - oh, I forgot, your government decides which countries you can visit and which ones you can't, so you'll have to check with them first.
Brian, Leeds, England
I love some of these comments:
We're being lectured on environmentalism and human rights by a guy in China.
I guess it's China that is building a "freer world" as well....
Mike, Wilmington, NC, USA
When considering Kyoto, it is best to remember that it was Bill Clinton & the Democratic Congress that killed it, the EU's whipping boy. Remember also the US is larger than the entire EU, & what would happen if the EU had to meet the same Kyoto limit--economic meltdown from Berlin to Rome to London
Bob Evans, Anaheim, California
California where I live have the most strict air pollution laws. Especially for cars. Our laws are even more restrictive than the EU as far as car emissions go. We don't have the large public transportation infrastructure you all have. We have a lot of commuting via cars going on.
Sandra , Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Thanks to author for some rational thoughts & about delight Americans take in crisscrossing USA. Have taken my six TALL children all over Continental US in Volvo wagon, then Mercedes Benz wagon & for the last 4.5 years in my wonderful Hummer H2--greening the trees w/CO2. LOVE FREEDOM & LIBERTY!!!
Terri Dance, Salisbury, Missouri, USA
OK, I have a solution - how about we (the US) cut off all foreign aid programs and focus on implementing greener practices in our own land? We may be one of the wealthiest nations, but we are also one of (if not THE) most generous nations, especially in terms of private donations to foreign causes.
Dave, Layton, USA
Why are U.S. Embassies around the world (wherever they are free to do so) crowded daily by people who want to come here? Simple--everyone has an opportunity, if they work hard, to succeed. It is called freedom. Try it; you'll like it.
Bill, Yorktown, USA
It's important to reduce the national importance of various EU countries to the size of single US states, in terms of GDP, then look deeper into the state-level policies moving through US state legislatures. Most green policies are pushed by GOP law makers at the state level.
stefan bund, newport beach, ca , usa
Bronwen hits the nail on the head: the US is the most hypocritical guy in today's world. Under the pretext of building a freer world, America is just making profits for its own hegemonic power at the cost of the global envrionment and international human rights.
Zhang Qi, Shanghai, China
Since 1964 the US has set aside over 107 million acres of public land as "wilderness" - no buildings, roads, fences, motorized vehicles. An area twice the size of Britain without a single manmade object or sound. It would be hard to find a public roadless wilderness of even 10,000 acres in Britain.
Jasper Reed-Spencer, London, England
Not completely, those decisions are also being based on politicians greed and gullible citizens. Check out the "Goracle's" portfolio sometime.
Reiuxcat, Covington, USA
Yes Bronwen (& Terry), Americans are all deeply caring people profoundly concerned with their social responsibilities in all global matters.... they're just mis-understood, that's all!
Garth, Australia,
The truth is that there is NO solid scientific evidence that carbon dioxide emissions do anything but supply plants one of the three essential ingredients for photosynthesis. A lot of half-baked governmental decisions are being made based on nothing more than computer models.
Terry L. Walker, Ladson, SC / USA