Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Should the United States Issue a Formal Apology for Climate Change?
It’s 2017 and the newly elected President of the United States is apologizing to the world for its contribution to environmental injustices at home and globally. Could this happen? Should it happen?
OP/ED from a UK Environmental Attorney
It’s 2017 and the newly elected president of the United States is apologizing to the world for its contribution to environmental injustices at home and globally. Could this happen? Should it happen?
There’s a long list of historic environmental injustices that the United States has inflicted upon its own peoples and cultures, and globally. Environmental racism (where environmental laws, policies and practices have differentially affected individuals, groups of communities based on race or colour), the watered-down approach of American companies toward corporate social responsibility, and its significant contribution towards climate change all form part of an embarrassing environmental scorecard.
As a proud and courageous nation, the United States should be honest with itself. It’s time for the damaging and dangerous notions, fantasies, and myths of American exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny that continue to influence some elements of the nation’s political ideology to be confined to history.
Without doubt, some former presidents have shown the world the way of good environmental leadership, making a positive and lasting contribution to protecting the planet. Former President John F Kennedy, a true visionary, declared that more than any other people on Earth, the United States bears burdens and accept risks unprecedented in their size and their duration, including for all those who wish to be free.
Richard Nixon ushered in the decade of the environment and established the Environmental Protection Agency, and Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton built on the public lands legacy started by Theodore Roosevelt. It was Roosevelt who recognised that the environment had a direct connection to democratic ideals and that the conservation of natural resources was a duty we owe to our children and our children’s children. For Roosevelt, conservation was a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of ensuring the safety and continuance of the nation.
But other presidents have advanced/pushed pro-growth, anti-regulatory, anti-environmental agendas, politicizing the scientific debate by ignoring scientific evidence, distorting facts, and leading to the censorship of scientists and reports — doing so at the peril of the United States and the world, leading to morality-based politics.
I believe the sense of belonging to a community and showing an allegiance to it carries with it a moral obligation to make amends for a nation’s past wrongs. That is patriotism. And with that sense of belonging comes responsibility. It is not really possible to claim national pride if there’s no will to acknowledge any responsibility for carrying the nation’s story into the present, and discharging the moral burdens that come with it.
So, why apologize?
Over the past few years, there have been a number of political apologies offered by nations for historical and more recent injustices.
As a nation, any empathy toward its neighbours brings with it feelings of shame and guilt for some aspects of its way of life. Through apologizing, that dignity and self-esteem could be restored.
Our fragile planet demands that we renew and focus our energies on the resolution of conflicts, and that it is done in a way that does not simply submerge the resentments that inevitably accompany such conflicts but acknowledges and responds to them. I believe that apologizing can help in that effort.
But apologizing is more than merely an acknowledgment of offences together with an expression of remorse. It is an ongoing commitment to change the nation’s behaviour. It is a process that requires of all parties attitudes of honesty, generosity, humility, commitment, and courage.
It is an inconvenient truth that the United States has contributed significantly more to current climate change than any other nation. The nation needs to find new ways to communicate with the peoples of the world, with belief in its hearts, to be better understood. The nation can invest in, and redefine, its spiritual and moral values. It must not let its past mistakes dictate its future. And it must right the wrongs of its past.
Paul Collins is an environmental lawyer and author of The Apology, to be published in the fall 2015 by Moon Willow Press.
 Byron, W. and Sussman, G. (2010) White House Politics and the Environment, Texas A&M University Press.
 Mihai, M. and Thaler, M. (2014) On the Uses and Abuses of Political Apologies, Palgrave Macmillan. Sandel, M. (2010) Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? Penguin.
 Lazare, M.D. (2005) On Apology, Oxford University Press.
Photo Credit: GABRIEL BOUYS / Getty Images
With just a few strategical tweaks, the Nazis could have won one of World War II's most decisive battles.
- The Battle of Britain is widely recognized as one of the most significant battles that occurred during World War II. It marked the first major victory of the Allied forces and shifted the tide of the war.
- Historians, however, have long debated the deciding factor in the British victory and German defeat.
- A new mathematical model took into account numerous alternative tactics that the German's could have made and found that just two tweaks stood between them and victory over Britain.
Two strategic blunders<p>Now, historians and mathematicians from York St. John University have collaborated to produce <a href="http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~nm15/bootstrapBoB%20AAMS.docx" target="_blank">a statistical model (docx download)</a> capable of calculating what the likely outcomes of the Battle of Britain would have been had the circumstances been different. </p><p>Would the German war effort have fared better had they not bombed Britain at all? What if Hitler had begun his bombing campaign earlier, even by just a few weeks? What if they had focused their targets on RAF airfields for the entire course of the battle? Using a statistical technique called weighted bootstrapping, the researchers studied these and other alternatives.</p><p>"The weighted bootstrap technique allowed us to model alternative campaigns in which the Luftwaffe prolongs or contracts the different phases of the battle and varies its targets," said co-author Dr. Jaime Wood in a <a href="https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2020/research/mathematicians-battle-britain-what-if-scenarios/" target="_blank">statement</a>. Based on the different strategic decisions that the German forces could have made, the researchers' model enabled them to predict the likelihood that the events of a given day of fighting would or would not occur.</p><p>"The Luftwaffe would only have been able to make the necessary bases in France available to launch an air attack on Britain in June at the earliest, so our alternative campaign brings forward the air campaign by three weeks," continued Wood. "We tested the impact of this and the other counterfactuals by varying the probabilities with which we choose individual days."</p><p>Ultimately, two strategic tweaks shifted the odds significantly towards the Germans' favor. Had the German forces started their campaign earlier in the year and had they consistently targeted RAF airfields, an Allied victory would have been extremely unlikely.</p><p>Say the odds of a British victory in the real-world Battle of Britain stood at 50-50 (there's no real way of knowing what the actual odds are, so we'll just have to select an arbitrary figure). If this were the case, changing the start date of the campaign and focusing only on airfields would have reduced British chances at victory to just 10 percent. Even if a British victory stood at 98 percent, these changes would have cut them down to just 34 percent.</p>
A tool for understanding history<p>This technique, said co-author Niall Mackay, "demonstrates just how finely-balanced the outcomes of some of the biggest moments of history were. Even when we use the actual days' events of the battle, make a small change of timing or emphasis to the arrangement of those days and things might have turned out very differently."</p><p>The researchers also claimed that their technique could be applied to other uncertain historical events. "Weighted bootstrapping can provide a natural and intuitive tool for historians to investigate unrealized possibilities, informing historical controversies and debates," said Mackay.</p><p>Using this technique, researchers can evaluate other what-ifs and gain insight into how differently influential events could have turned out if only the slightest things had changed. For now, at least, we can all be thankful that Hitler underestimated Britain's grit.</p>
Apple sold its first iPod in 2001, and six years later it introduced the iPhone, which ushered in a new era of personal technology.
A biologist-reporter investigates his fungal namesake.
The unmatched biologist-reporter Tomasz Sitarz interviews his fungal namesake, maślak sitarz – known in English as the Jersey cow mushroom.