After writing on this blog for many many months about environmental issues one consistent theme I just cannot fathom is the lack of foresight that is often exhibited by our corporations and politicians in terms of future planning as it relates to environmental impact. So much of what I read and then write about hinges upon investment and costs, the recurrent argument being that combating climate change is just too expensive at the moment, there are other priorities that better need money to be administered towards fixing them, the evidence is incomplete and there is no guarantee of success, the public want to accept the added costs to make things more environmentally friendly.

Each and every one of those arguments plus many more are routinely rolled out every time the call to combat climate change via governmental policy/ legislation or corporate strategies are tuned in to the right frequency. Cost-cutting and environmental protection just don’t go hand-in-hand according to many politicians who represent us. We can’t afford to do what needs to be done at the moment we are told, conversely I argue how can we possibly wait? It reminds me of many of the studies conducted about urban infrastructure renewal as cities have expanded and spread. Proposals and costings were laid out for highway construction, additional public transport and housing to meet rising demand. The debates would then drag on for years and years but the need would never change, only increase. At the end of reluctant meetings the roads, rails, buildings and all infrastructure were still constructed only at much higher costs than had originally been factored due to the passage of time.

I sincerely feel we face the same scenario now when it comes to tackling environmental issues head-on. If the groundwork is not accelerated now and the costs are not taken on board, The greater costs of global warming and a continued over-reliance on fossil fuels and non-renewable energy will be our lasting legacy for generations to come. Even now in Washington DC the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is being systematically attacked as not having the ‘legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions’ which is really a convenient way of driving through the proposed 17% budget cuts that the agency is being faced with due to new budgetary measures if approved. Opponents argue that the proposed cuts of $1.6 billion will take the agency backwards rapidly in terms of achievements relating to environmental and safety measures previously implemented. The clean air act which does demonstrate tangible successes could well be weakened as a result. Will money be saved? Of course it will in 2011, only for the costs to better manage environmental issues to escalate further in the years to come. Its the same story in far too many countries, people cite ‘bigger priorities’ as if climate and environmental issues will somehow be suspended and placed on pause just because we decide so.

So how does such shortsighted legislation even reach the point of being discussed, never mind implemented? It comes down to the lingering debate that certain politicians on behalf of their electorates are arguing that man-made climate change does not really exist and that spending money to combat something that doesn’t exist is money wasted. Where I stand on that debate is not the issue, the issue is the purpose of the EPA. If the agency is tasked with protecting the environment and the root cause of what is damaging the environment should not be determining how well the department is financed. The necessary work, legislation and standards must be carried out regardless.

The spending cuts that will harm the fight against climate change don’t just stop with the proposed EPA cuts however, opposition to a $1 billion investment in high-speed rail, plus a similar amount proposed for energy to efficiency also stand to face the chop. Sadly if no one pays attention now it’s increasingly likely that where a political party stands on environmental issues will be the single biggest factor in their success 25 years from now. Long-term solutions and short-term thinking remain at odds and and I worry that our future is being gambled away.