This talk was particularly interesting because it helped me gain insight into the processes of coming to an international agreement. It also emphasized the point that the US is influential. And, as the speaker pointed out, it doesn't matter where the emmissions originate -- their effect is global. Similarly, the effect of the US decision to not be part of the agreement has a global effect -- not only through pollution, but by impacting the accountability of nations crafting energy policies and trying to decide on their commitment to their global neighbors.
Whatever we use the ANWR oil for, the decision to drill represents a fundamental lack of commitment to ending global warming: an attitude which will not be seen favorably by those countries who have signed the Kyoto Protocol, some of whom we are very interested in staying on good terms with. In our group discussions, we have been throwing around the idea that if we simply increased fuel efficiency standards by a small margin, we would be able to essentially account for the oil in ANWR within a short period of time. And, in doing so, we would be currying favor with nations who have made sacrifices in order to reduce emmissions.
What I'm essentially saying here is that drilling will result in very negative consequences for the international crusade against global warming. However, just as it is difficult for oil companies to look beyond tomorrow's profit margins, it is difficult for the US government to pass policies that reflect the idea of "enlightened self-interest:" the concept that, although the benefits of a certain action are not necessarily apparent on the surface, taking this action will be ultimately beneficial to the one taking it. In other words, we're having trouble setting strict energy policies (particulartly regarding our oil consumption) because the positive outcomes they will result in are really only relevant to future generations, and have less of an impact on current US residents who are very interested in seeing oil prices remain stable.