Anti-American or Pro-environment?

Paul Martin's shot at George Bush re environmental irresponsibility predictably brought down accusations of anti-Americanism on the poor man's head, particularly but not exclusively from those who define anti-American as even slight deviation from American Republican orthodoxy. Perhaps the PM shouldn't have named names, but let's keep our perspective. The U.S. Administration is a laggard rather than a leader on climate change. Despite being the world's major polluter, the U.S. has refused even to sign onto the Kyoto protocol, which is no more than a small first step in ensuring we don't turn our precious little planet into another Venus.

Some pundits pointed out that overall the Americans have done better than us in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, so where does Martin get off, they ask. This is true, but no praise goes to the U.S. Administration. American achievements are due to efforts by some states and cities, for example California's tight restrictions on automobile emissions, efforts that have been opposed at times by their federal government. Responsible jurisdictions in the U.S. went so far as to send an informal delegation to the environmental conference in Montreal in order to balance the views of the formal delegates. As long as the Bush administration continues to undermine international co-operation, we cannot be surprised if some leaders, like Prime Minister Martin, occasionally lose their patience. This isn't anti-Americanism, it's anti-American unilateralism.