Yes. That’s right. In today’s rush to become the meanest, greenest, and cleanest nation in the world — the 21^st century’s equivalent to the epic space race between the Soviets and Americans — the European Union nations are not only in the lead, their lead is growing by leaps and bounds. This gap has widened substantially this month alone because of two major developments. First, as of September 1^st it became illegal in the largest economy in the world, that of the E.U.’s 27 member states, to sell traditional incandescent light bulbs. Now only low-energy light bulbs will be sold – a simple, but yet bold move that will significantly cut both energy bills and carbon emissions. The move is estimated to save the average consumer $62 a year on energy bills and reduce carbon emissions by millions of tons every year. Just in the United Kingdom alone, for example, five million tons of CO2 emissions per year are expected to be avoided.

It is true that in the U.S. we are also moving towards a phasing out of traditional lightbulbs, but we are severely lagging behind on the issue. In 2007 the new Democratic majorities in the House and Senate passed an extensive energy bill that includes a phasing out of the incandescent bulbs starting in 2012 – nearly three years after that of the E.U.. This is admittedly progress, but the question should be why not do it sooner? How many millions of tons of carbon emissions will needlessly be emitted into the environment just by delaying an inevitable change for political expediency? This isn’t about making people get rid of their current lightbulbs, it’s about ensuring that any new bulbs people buy are greener and more efficient.  Its about making a very modest upfront investment (one with a pretty decent return too!) to save not only on energy bills, but on damaging the planet. Even if we gave store owners and manufacturers a year to date to make this change, we could still implement it by October 2010. Under a democratic president, this common sense change should now be implemented. Things like this are the low hanging fruit in the fight against climate change.

The second development that has launched the E.U. further out in front in the space race of the 21^st century, although I won’t go into as much detail here, is their recent move toward pledging EUR15 billion a year starting in 2020 towards fighting climate change in developing countries. At least with this one we’ve got some more time to catch up. The crude fact is, as emissions continue to grow in many of the surging economies of developing nations, leadership from developed nations will be crucial towards providing the technology and training needed for this growth to be less carbon intensive. The U.S. simply cannot be the weakest link in this crucial task.

To get more toward the larger point, however: I originally wanted to call this column “ENERGY SAVING LIGHTBULBS MAKE THE FUTURE BRIGHTER”, but I think the one I chose is more thought provoking. After all, why is it no longer that we in the U.S. REALLY REALLY need to be the best at EVERYTHING? We got to the moon before those damned commies, so now it’s ok to put our feet up and relax for a few centuries? It’s sort of like we inherited the best cassette player company in the world and now don’t really feel like putting in the effort to upgrade to MP3 players. I mean we might have to let go of our cassette player experts and hire some MP3 guys instead, we might have to design a new product and we might need to get new manufacturing equipment, but isn’t that what is necessary in order to stay competitive and on the cutting edge? Isn’t that what we’d have to do to even stay in business?

It is very telling that we in the United States very rarely pay attention to what goes on in the rest of the world, yet the rest of the world follows us with a passion only comparable to our insatiable appetite for following Hollywood movie stars and Britney Spears in the tabloids that array the checkout lines in every grocery store throughout the country. I saw this phenomenon first hand while studying in London during the last presidential campaign. Everyone there was seemingly watching with fascination. Can you imagine if we actually led on the issue of climate change – with the entire world paying attention? Believe it or not, what we do still captures the world’s imagination. In 2007, for example, Thomas Friedman asked French President Nicolas Sarkozy: “What would be the impact if America became the world leader on combating climate change rather than the world’s laggard?” Sarkozy responded:

“I grew up listening to Elvis Presley…I grew up watching American films. America is a story of unprecedented economic success, unprecedented democratic success…I will always love America. So when I see the U.S. hated by everyone, it really pains me. [When America isn't taking on the issue of climate change] I am asking, ‘Where is the American Dream? What happened? Where has it gone? You are whistled at at global conferences like the G8. That is what has happened. You are bounded by two oceans. You will be the first to be affected by rising sea levels. You should be setting the example. You should be spearheading the battle for the environment…You cannot be the first champion of human rights and the last when it comes to obligations and responsibilities on environment.”

Friedman got similar answers from other world leaders. Not only does America need America to lead on the issue of climate change. The world needs America to lead on the issue of climate change.

Peace.

Matt Horowitz.