As a young lawyer at NRDC in the 1970s, I found it incredibly inspiring to watch the United States lead the world in the fight to protect our planet from mounting pollution and resource degradation. I would never have imagined then that decades later -- as we enter a time of unprecedented global change -- the leadership of the United States would be so blind to the world's growing environmental threats.

What makes this situation particularly hard to fathom is that no single nation has more to lose by refusing to confront our current environmental problems -- or more to contribute toward solving them -- than the United States. As shareholders in the world's largest economy, Americans have grown more accustomed to material comfort than any other people. Yet with resources such as oil, land and fresh water in finite supply -- and with consumer demand in China and other nations rapidly increasing -- we simply cannot sustain our current rate of consumption. At the same time, we are the world's biggest polluter. With less than 5 percent of the world's population, the United States contributes 25 percent of the world's total carbon dioxide emissions -- more than China, Japan and India combined -- and consumes 26 percent of the world's oil, 25 percent of the coal and 27 percent of natural gas.

America's status as both the wealthiest and most polluting country on earth means that we must be a central player in any effort to protect the global environment. Yet despite our unparalleled influence -- and the growing pressures on our planet's natural systems -- the United States has increasingly failed to take a leadership role on environmental protection.

In the 1970s, Americans were at the forefront of establishing a system of international environmental governance. We played an active role in creating institutions such as the United Nations Environment Programme and in shaping international treaties including the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which aims to protect the earth's ozone layer. At the same time, U.S. officials pushed for more transparency and environmental accountability for international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. And countries worldwide have used U.S. laws such as the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act as a blueprint for establishing their own environmental legislation.

We have made important strides in recent decades in cleaning up our air and water, setting aside wildlands for protection and preserving biodiversity. But these efforts have not gone nearly far enough. Without a dramatic shift in how we consider and manage our remaining natural resources, we as Americans will find our standard of living, our health, and our security in jeopardy. According to a major international scientific report released in 2005, human demand has already wiped out 60 percent of the world's grasslands, forests, farmlands, rivers and lakes. And scientists predict that as the global population swells to an estimated 9 billion people by 2050, widespread conflicts could arise over the world's supplies of fresh water and other resources.

As the economies of China, India and other developing countries continue to grow, the number of vehicles on the road is projected to climb to some 1.2 billion by 2025, and at its current growth rate, energy consumption could be twice what it is today by 2035. As a result, pollution from vehicle tailpipes and coal-burning power plants will surge, trapping heat in the earth's atmosphere and creating more severe global warming. Climate change will lead to a heightened risk of natural disasters, such as floods and drought, and could drive one-third of all wildlife species extinct by mid-century, scientists say.

Despite the obvious implications of these changes for the national security, economy and public health of the United States, U.S. officials continue to refuse to make the global environment a priority. Since taking office, the Bush administration has by and large failed to assist other countries in coping with environmental problems or in implementing laws, and in many cases has conducted a systematic effort to weaken international environmental regimes. The administration has:

• Twice sought exemptions from the Montreal Protocol's provision banning the use of methyl bromide, the most potent ozone-depleting chemical still in widespread use.
  
  
• Refused to ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the first international agreement calling for mandatory reductions of global warming gas emissions.
  
  
• Failed to move forward several other key treaties, including the 1989 Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste and the 1979 Bonn Convention on Migratory Species.
  
  
• Hindered international efforts to establish binding limits on mercury emissions from power plants and the use of high-intensity military sonar, which causes serious harm to whales and other marine mammals.
  
  
• Regularly sought to undercut decades-old U.S. laws such as the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, forsaking America's record as a pioneer of environmental legislation.
  

NRDC is calling upon Congress to take the first step toward restoring U.S global environmental leadership. It is time to take a hard, bipartisan look at the combined impacts of population growth, resource use and environmental pollution on our national interests. We have never undertaken this kind of congressionally mandated review -- and the last time the federal government took an extensive look at these issues was in the late 1970s. NRDC is working with other organizations on the Earth Legacy Campaign, which calls upon Congress to create a commission to review current scientific understanding about the state of our planet and to make recommendations for U.S. leadership to protect the global environment.

No other country in the world is as well positioned as the United States to stimulate the kinds of sweeping changes that are critical right now. If we embrace technologies that help us live more efficiently and actively cooperate with other countries on environmental issues, we can sustain our societies without overwhelming the world's ecosystems. Otherwise, what kind of planet will we leave our children?

last revised 5.18.05