| Popis: |
The pattern of political leaders selling out the environment for political expedience is so excruciatingly familiar and predictable that it contributes to the plotline of a major Hollywood film (The American President, 1995). Even those politicians who run on an environmental platform, it appears, are required by economic and/or political pressure to exploit the biotic world. While President Barack Obama’s arrival in the White House initially fostered optimism for environmental advocates, the President’s decision to embrace nuclear power, offshore oil drilling, and “clean” coal as keystones of his energy policy quickly cooled their enthusiasm.1 Similarly, despite being flanked by his introduction to the 1992 edition of Silent Spring and the release of (the problematic, yet highly significant) An Inconvenient Truth (2006), Al Gore’s tenure as Vice President failed to advance ecologically sound practices, though he attempted (yet failed) to get the Kyoto Protocol through Senate. It would appear that anyone in or next to the Oval Office is unlikely to enact significant environmental change, unless such change leads to further global degradation (cf. George W.).2 Shakespeare’s Richard II provides a thoughtful meditation on land use and rule. |
