Slashdot Mirror
US Opposes G8 Climate Proposals
elrond writes "The US appears to have summarily rejected draft proposals for G8 members that would have agreed to tougher measures for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. The BBC reports that leaked documents have indicated the positions of the various world powers, from the timetable-setting of Germany to the US's intractable stance. Red ink comments on the documents hint at the US's irritation: 'The US still has serious, fundamental concerns about this draft statement. The treatment of climate change runs counter to our overall position and crosses 'multiple red lines' in terms of what we simply cannot agree to ... We have tried to tread lightly but there is only so far we can go given our fundamental opposition to the German position.'"
Let's hope so.
USA seems to be saying to the world, "we don't care about the planet".
A large population of our country is simply unable to comprehend american life without their SUVs/cheap gas/walmart lifestyles.
this news is sadly unsurprising.
when will the US finally step up and take something other than short-term, economic driven decisions concerning the environment?
~~~ Paf. Le chien.
Something like "environment tarrifs" would actually fit to the market-driven hardcore-capitalism position. Let the market regulate things. If we want environment-conscious products, make sure the pollution is more expensive.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
the world is more like a single civilization these days, any sanctions brought by europe would have far reaching consequences for the world economy. while I do think that the only way to get the top C02 producers' attention is to hit their wallet, I dont think sanctions are it. mainly because sanctions interrupt the global economy not just america's. but hey if there is a way, I hope they do it- I am sick of politicians and industry putting their own monetary goals ahead of life on Earth- something must be done.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Big surprise here....Capitalism and money get in the way of the environment news at 11. Really here whats new? The USA has always balked at environmental measures that would mean its big industry's would have to clean up there act. Just look at the steel mills that pollute the greatlakes as one example.
You have to remember the USA is a republic, that acts like a democracy, that is controlled by Capitalism! and anything that hurts the allmighty rich is criminal. Or a act of terrorism.
Correction, The USA is a democracy, ruled by the people. So the US goverment is the US and represents the US's views.
We don't suppose you can spare some rice and some oil, by any chance? Only the desert now stretches from the West Coast to Chicago and we have a bit of a food problem. And the Canadians have built a big fence along the border and won't let us in as none of us want to mow their lawns or harvest their oranges.
We can offer plenty of stuff in exchange. How about some strategic nuclear missiles? Or some fighter aircraft? We've got plenty of them. Unfortunately, turns out they don't work too well if you want to invade another country and make people grow food for you.
Pining for the fjords
i remember the last g8 thing demanded major reform from usa while ignoring third world countries. if this is still the case, i could understand not wanting anything to do with it.
I miss the Karma Whores.
People are talking about Europe being upset at the US because they have it easier but what about China and India? Both countries are growing up fast and China is especially lose about its restrictions. How would you as the US feel if were asked by a region which is economically inferior to yours to hamper your economy, but yet they ignore your strongest competitor. From a pure monetary standpoint that doesn't make much sense if you want stay successful as a country.
The thing is not inly if "greenhouse gasses" affect the climate. It's also about outrageous and irresponsible use of resources. It's about pollution.
You don't pollute your own house, so stop polluting this world.
Although I don't live in your house and couldn't care less about what you do there, I and about 6 billion people live in this world so let's keep it clean.
Privacy is terrorism.
talk about american egotism. The EU is a bigger market than the USA, and one that would survive quite happily without you. The USA manufactures very lttle these days, most of its made in china, and your currency is worth so little that your value as customers is steadily dropping.
Dont expect the EU to shed too many tears about losing the USA as a market.
In a true free market capitalism world, someone would own the air, water etc. and you would have to pay them for the right to pollute. Some senators therefore proposed to privatize everything, so somebody would care if you destroy these things. I think we are in enough trouble already with patents and intellectual property to see that making everything "owned by someone" is not necessarily the best option. But this is what a real market version would look like. Today we have a world where a number of resources are provided "for free" instead of having a price, which is part of the problem.
memomo: free web based language trainer DE-EN-ES-FR-IT
The only problem with a pure free market is that it acts under the assumption that what makes the best business sense will be inherently good for everyone. Just because the average consumer want to pay less for goods in exchange for more environmental damage, that doesn't mean it is a good idea. The reason that we have (and need, unfortunately) governments is that often what the best choice for society at large is a poor choice for a give segment of that society. A dying environment is a bad thing for society. It may be fine for specific business or acceptable for some consumers, but that does not make it a good choice or outcome.
It's a republic, actually. Ruled by elected representatives of the people. Democracy is just the word those representatives use to make the people of the US feel warm and fuzzy.
Personally, I've rarely encountered a candidate for major public office that represents my views. I believe that there's a decent-sized minority similar to myself that simply can't quite overpower (in votes) the majority that focuses on whatever the two major candidates have decided are important issues today.
It's scary being a Flash and Flex developer on Slashdot. You guys are unnaturally rabid.
"that simply can't quite overpower (in votes) the majority that focuses on whatever the two major candidates have decided are important issues today"
Or the even larger majority who are basically conned into voting for whichever party based on misleading and one-sided campaign publicity (TV & radio adverts, billboards etc.).
It's funny how in almost all US elections for the past couple of decades, it is the party with the most campaign money behind it that gets into power.
I never understood this mentality..
Why do we have police? Because citizens, as good as we are, cannot be trusted to police ourselves without a ton of laws and police to make sure we do what we're supposed to.
Why should the market be any better? It's run by those same people who could not be trusted to maintain law biding composure.
The market is fueled by it's self which is why companies are able to sell people products they don't really want or need (diamonds?), while consumers have the choice in the end, they also manipulate the hell out of us and try to convince us that their products are really safe/healthy/environmental.. when they're not.
A perfect example would be "0 Trans Fats" vs "No Trans Fats" (yes, there's a difference). No transfats means just that; 0 means it could be "0.9g Transfats" but because of the current standards, they can truncate the number to become "0".
Who then is going to stop a company from lying about how environmentally friendly their products are if there is no actual regulation?
MABASPLOOM!
"... why should we wreck our economy over something that not everyone can agree on..."
Who says it would wreck the economy? Automakers cried wolf in the same fashion in the 70's and 80's when rasied MPG requirements and imposed the environmental standards that required catalytic converters and cleaner fuels. "Oh," said they, "it will cause the collapse of the industry as we know it and cause irreparable harm to the US economy."
Didn't happen.
At worst cleaning up our act and imposing higher CAFE standards "might" impact corporate profits for a quarter or two. But in return we get a cleaner environment, less polution, and less dependence on foreign oil imports. Not to mention spawning new industries to provide those solutions and technologies.
And that's a bad thing... how?
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Correction: The companies who bought off the representatives of the U.S. government.
As the single biggest waster of energy in the world and a country where average miles per gallon figures are actually dropping, I would hope that a bigger stick would be applied to the US.
Do you hassle all your neighbours equally, or just the ones who are letting their dog shit on your lawn?
Even if we come up with a huge breakthrough on the energy production front,
How about just improving the efficency of your economy to the same level that other people have?
China and India will both be producing 5-10 times more emissions than they are today
Gothcha, two wrongs make a right.
They aren't covered by this agreement at all.
Oh, I thought you said you didn't know the specifics of the agreement.
global warming still just as much of a problem and the developed world has no economy left,
Hey, crazy thought, but couldn't you just not buy all that crap China is producing? I mean, if you're that worried about their economy overtaking yours maybe you should stop paying them to do it? Plus, since they're a totally corrupt and evil country, you'd even be acting ethically. Just a thought. We could all make a small start by not sending any teams to the Chinese Olympics.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
The funny thing is, that Christianity has been perverted to a big degree, I dont know where those groups derive their believe from, it cannot be in the words written down.
Lets sum those words up, there was a guy 2000 years ago, he went into confrontation against people who had strict religious rules, he sided with hookers poor people etc, and called the rich ones being not his people. He went into opposition against things which would make the life miserable for ordinary people, and he was in his core message not really a very capitalistic guy (some people nowadays probably would call him communistic, I just would say he puts the people in the core of his message not the money)
He also was absolutely opposed to any war or violence whatsover even dismissing defense as valid form of violence.
Now lets face it, if a guy with such a message would go out into the crowds nowadays, how long do you think his life expectancy would be. Probably three years as well, the killer, probably some corporate sponsored guy, or a religious zealot, who wants to the defend the words of jesus (and does in fact do totally the opposite). Jesus probably would go in total confrontation with any right wing cristian groups like he did with the jewis zealots in the past, and probably would call them severe names out of anger, he also would go into opposition with lots of governments including our own, and generally our society of self righteousness while we bring lots of misery onto the rest of the planet.
I dont think the message he would bring us would be very comforting for us!
"Socialist Europe"
ROFLMAO. Another American who has no idea what socialism means and no clue about Europe and the result is mindless drivel without foothold in reality, good job.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
For some people, the idea of "free trade" includes the right to know what one is buying. Evidently not so for Bush.
Well, yes.
The only reason the U.S. is not making a bigger stink out of the Airbus subsidies is because it is subsidizing civilian construction as well. Usually via the slightly indirect route of fat defense contracts, but if it walks like a duck...
Now, did you have anything to contribute, aside from snide anti-Europeanism?
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
The problem is that you cannot make real money preventing global warming. All you can do is to put yourself at an economic disadvantage.
However, there are mountians of govenment money to be made trying to correct the effects of it once it gets up and slaps people in the face.
So why try to stop it. Ride the tidal wave and make some real money in the future.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
If we simply redefine our system into the globalized century, we can compete.
The reason we cannot compete is because we ignore our strengths. The USA should be the easiest/best/cheapest place on planet earth to start a small business, period. The USA should stop fearing growth, and change the laws so that growth is encouraged.
Pollution is not profitable for anyone. The solution, is simple, if we want a better market, we have to make it more free, and the only way to make it more free is to allow for increased flexibility, more options, more choices for corporations, consumers, etc. The person who wants to start a corporation should have more freedom to define and classify their corporation. The whole (for profit) and (non profit) segregation, is ultimately why we have corporations which are run irresponsibly.
I'm not saying a corporation should not focus on profit, but a founder of a corporation should have many options of many different types of corporate entities they'd like to start, and we need to allow for options which encourage social responsibility and environmentally friendly operation.
We also need to make it more expensive to be irresponsible. How can we make corporations responsible if we don't?
Most importantly, we need hundreds of new tools. Taxes are an old tool. Tarrifs are an old tool, and both of these tools depend on a big centralized government. What about tools that a local community can use? What about tools that allow for the corporation to, by design, operate in the way we require environmentally?
Corporations could be made to pay hefty fines, or high taxes, we could have a pollution tax. We'd also need to give tax credits and benefits to corporations which don't pollute. We'd also need new types of corporations which by law are required to minimize pollution while maximizing profits. We also need corporations which, by architecture, function just the way they should.
What you have to do, is use your ideas, your concepts, your thoughts, to be an intellectual architect, and develop a new corporate architecture. We need corporation 2.0, and corporation 3.0, and 4.0 onto infinity. We have better product standards for motherboard and CPU designs. We design better graphics cards than we do corporations and policies.
Do we need to host a contest with a 10 million dollar prize to see who can come up with the best new policy ideas, best new architectures for corporations, best new corporate classifications?
Because the ideas the green party offers to me, are not going to work. Raising taxes will never work because there is no evidence that the government was ever a more efficient driver in society than the corporation. If there ever were a time, it was when corporations were just barely invented. We have hedge funds now, and a global market, but governments still operating on old models. We have a global market now, but we still have corporations operating on old models.
Corporation need the freedom to operate on new levels, and once this happens then we will be able to solve climate change, and there will not be a need for trade wars. We just need to become more efficient, and the way for us to become more efficient, is for the USA to become the investor nation. We should invest in the third world, and have the third world working for our corporations. When those in the third world start their own corporations, we can buy stock. We have a global market, and it's extremely proitable, but the only thing holding us back at this point is ourselves and our own inefficiency.
Why do we have people starving in the third world, dying of cureable diseases, when we could be using 100% of our human resources? We could invent new sports for people to watch, we can invent new industries, new markets, and then maximize our human resources to realize our dreams.
We could be building stuff on the moon, underwater, or whereever, and you'd think space travel would be a lot cheaper if we had a workforce of 6 billion. How much easier would
Climatologists are uniquely and especially qualified to tell us what's going on with the climate. I don't doubt that what they're saying, is happening.
However, the ultimate question is: what is the most effective course of action to limit the impact of climate change--if indeed it will have any--on human activity?
It does not necessarily follow that the answer is to stop what is causing climate change. Perhaps it would be a more efficient use of resources to address not climate change itself, but rather its effects.
For instance, resources that go into cleaning up power plants are resources that can't be used to, say, develop a better means of combating malaria. Perhaps this new malaria treatment would have a more beneficial impact than stopping whatever is causing climate change.
Yes, this is a rather simplified example, but hopefully it helps you get the idea of what I'm talking about.
No, I don't know for sure if that will be the case--but neither does anyone else, and especially not climatologists.
This is an area where climatologists have no special competence, and that is why their policy suggestions are not necessarily more worthy of consideration than those of the average layman uneducated in economics and the other social sciences. They have no specific qualifications that enables them to discuss, say, risk aversion or time rates of preference, or individual subjective values.
If the goal is to limit the impact of climate change on human activity, then climatologists should not have any special role in the formation of public policy.
Modern societies and their economies are so complex that no individual or monolithic panel can ever hope to comprehend them fully. Over the past few centuries, the free market has demonstrated time and time again that it is the best method yet devised for dealing with just these sorts of problems. No one individual or government can know what the best means of dealing with climate change is--if it is even a problem. But the free market, by aggregating millions and billions of individuals, each with their own bits of information, can.
And if it turns out that the market does not respond to climate change, that is a sign that perhaps it's not as harmful to human activity as climatologists claim.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
Further, if the G8 did reduce emissions by 50% by 2050 (below 1990 levels... um... ok, so we reduce our energy consumption by 50% and don't completely destroy our economy how?).
Hey, remember. Emissions!=energy production. I could easily drop our emmissions by 50% and increase energy production. Nuclear power is our friend.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Unfortunately, the political will to make real changes seem to be lacking, not only in the US.
Ultimately, everyone's in favor of doing something to help our environment, but there's nearly always something they care more about, and very few people vote on the basis of a politician's stand on the environment.
And, perhaps more importantly. With democracy the way it is, politicians profit (get reelected) by looking no more than 4 years into the future. Any good they do which doesn't show significant results before the next election simply doesn't matter to the professional politician. Politics is a job, and securing your job is one of the greatest motivations for most people.
Making the drastic changes required to slow global warming significantly has a very high political cost - more unemployment as polluting businesses go out of business, and a great deal of money taken from other posts that will be obvious much earlier, and influence the next election a great deal.
We're all environmentalists, but when the interest rates start increasing, when your house falls in value, and you're in danger of losing your job... You don't vote for environmentalism, you vote for your own short term best interests.
And I fear that by the time the global climate becomes the immidiate problem for a majority of the population, it will be far too late to do anything effective to change it.
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
There's nothing scientifically invalid about eugenics and directed breeding. It may be morally reprehensible, but that's a whole other story entirely.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
Rather than write it here, I'll just link my Slashdot journal with some very easy, hard-fact based calculations showing it's the Sun, not man that's driving the situation.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Yes. In fact, as Adam Smith described, one of the requirements for an ideal free-trade system is that the buyer knows what they're buying and makes an informed/logical choice. In practice, this rarely occurs, and is one reason why free-trade is an ideal that (like communism) sounds nice in theory but doesn't translate quite so well into practice.
No one would let a trash-disposal company make money by dumping rubbish in their backyard - it's interesting that many people feel that public commons, like air and water, are somehow different.
'' I think you're mistaking for what market-driven means. If the government imposes tariffs on certain products/ services, then the government is actively changing the market by endorsing certain products (i.e. not letting the market regulate itself). In a true free market capitalism world, the government would stay out of this kinda business and let the consumer decide. If the consumers purchase environmentally-friendly products en masse (which will probably be more expensive), then companies will start catering to those people, and then the market will regulate itself into making more environmentally conscious products. ''
The government is changing markets anyway, for example by not allowing companies to shoot their competitors. Or by preventing them from burning your house down if you can't meet the payments for your car. Or by preventing them from burning your house down if you bought a competitor's products. Or by preventing them from putting stuff into your food that makes it last longer, but makes you sick.
And you will find that companies are actually quite happy with these rules, especially the first one. They can make profits whatever regulations are in place. The only thing that would be bad would be regulations that give preference to one company above another.
There are situations where pure capitalism doesn't work. There are situations where if everybody tries to look after himself only, the outcome is worse for everyone. Like "environmentally conscious products": An environmentally better product may cost $1 more to produce, but save $10 in damage to the environment. If I buy the product, I lose $1, but a million people each save one millionth of $10 in damages. Not a good deal for me. But if each of the one million people does the same, each loses one dollar in cost, but makes 10 dollars in less damages. So what I say and what each of the million will say once they think about it: I don't want to buy the environmentally friendly product myself. But it would be good if everybody (maybe excluding me) were forced to buy it. Everybody would be better off, including myself.
That is where regulations are useful. In capitalism, everyone works within the rules to maximise their profit. (That includes breaking laws; breaking laws usually gives you a chance of increasing profits but adds a risk of punishment). What a government should do is to set up the rules so that by maximising their profits within these rules, companies produce the best result for everyone. This just has to be done in an intelligent way.
An example: Lead in computers is harmful. So some states made it completely illegal to have any lead in a computer. This has disadvantages; in some cases lead has been replaced by stuff that is much more expensive, much more harmful, but currently not illegal (not illegal because nobody thought of using it before lead was outlawed). It would have been better to allow a computer to have any amount of lead, but with a lead tax calculated to reduce the amount. So in the course of profit maximising, companies would reduce the amount of lead automatically.
And there is no reason why this should make products more expensive. If for example a lead tax was very high, then the amount of lead used would automatically go down, so not much would be paid. And since such a lead tax would increase government income, other taxes could be reduced accordingly. That, I believe, gives the best results for everybody: Carefully selected taxation of undesirable things, designed so that capitalistic companies are free to optimise their profits, but by doing so will automatically produce things that are better for everybody.
We don't hate the American people (though the tourists can be a bit loud sometimes, they still mean well.)
But we hate the American government with a passion.
The distinction happens because the democratic process sometimes doesn't run as smoothly as one would hope - that can happen to any country.
-- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
"Socialists" believe no such thing as "the government is inherently good." Rather, they believe that it is the only institution currently extant in which all citizens are equally enfranchised just by virtue of being citizens. This isn't true for any other institution, and certainly not for businesses. This doesn't it make it "inherently good." It makes the instrument of the public interest.
"North Americans plant billions of trees each year. There is no reason why the rest of the world can't do the same."
This somehow remembers me some cute Maire Antoinette saying on pre-revolution days: "if there's no bread, let them eat cake!"
Please, remember how Marie Antoinette ended.
Why is winning wars important to you?
I find it barbaric to measure a countrys worth based on wars they have won. I personally base a countrys worth on what they offer the citizens and how little crime, esp violent crime the country has, access to health care, access to higher education, How they punish their own citizens etc. And when it comes to all of those, USA is pretty far down on any lists. It looks more like a banana republic than a 1st world country and yes, I have lived and worked here for over a decade and I have lived and worked in several other countries too. If I wasn't white with a good education from a top 50 university working in a 6 figure job and living in a climatically great area, I would not have been here.
I'm not French either, but when you use the French revolution against them, it is too dumb to take seriously. USA has not exactly been stellar when it comes to winning wars alone in the past either and it certainly have had zero luck in Iraq and Afghanistan, mostly because your leaders have zero clue about how to handle them. You have basically been shown that the US military machine is a waste of money and it will not be able to achieve anything in the world we currently live in. So, continue to spend a good portion of your tax money on the military, err on the fat cats running the armament industry. USA is slowly becoming a 3rd world society with a 1st world economy/military.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
No, it's not a red herring. You claim the right to exclude others from your house *even when such use doesn't conflict with your use of it*, just like musicians claim the right to exclude others from copying their music, even when it doesn't conflict with their own ability to hear or perform it. In both cases, it's not ability to have an instantiation of the good, but the ability to exclude others from it that is desired by the claimant. That is why appeals to non-scarcity cannot differentiate IP from other property.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
The rest of the world is turning against american copyrights+patents. That will cause a big pop.
More like a big bang. Normally, if one country were to devote most of its production resources to intellectual "property", and the rest of the world were to copy that property without paying, that country would be screwed. When that country spends more on its military than most of the rest of the world combined, things are different.
Put another way, if Europe were to impose "environmental impact teriffs" on US goods, the US could counter with "intellectual property use surcharges". The result would be a trade war. If things got really ugly, the US could impose a naval blockade.
Everybody in power already knows this, and knows it would be bad for almost everybody (just as trade is generally good). What will actually happen is each side will give a little, and the result will be a compromise. You can see this in US & Canadian forestry industries--Canadian forestry companies have voluntarily participated in the various environmental certification programs so that they can sell to large European customers that demand those certifications (I think the same is probably true of US forestry companies). Having said that, since even European standards are not tough enough to stop global warming, the compromise standards certainly won't be.
I think there's little hope of us reducing CO2 emissions sufficiently in the short-to-medium term. We're going to have to find alternate methods of controlling global warming, or else we're screwed.
"North Americans plant billions of trees each year. There is no reason why the rest of the world can't do the same."
This somehow remembers me some cute Maire Antoinette saying on pre-revolution days: "if there's no bread, let them eat cake!"
Please, remember how Marie Antoinette ended.
Clever, but a non-sequitir. I imagine your +4 rating has more to do with your historical reference and playing to the anti-american-they'll-get-theirs-someday crowd then you actually having a point.
Trees are a renewable resource that can be predictably grown and harvested- it's just that the season isn't months, it's decades. I see no good reason that we can't expect the rest of the world to act accordingly when it's something we do routinely in the US.
Unless, of course, your opinion is that the rest of the world is too stupid and impatient to treat wood like any other crop.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Uh as its currently implemented everyone owns the air water, etsc. every is also a member of the government, therefore the government owns the air, water etc and it should raise fees to pollute those resources. No one needs to be given ownership of these things, the politicians just need to grow a backbone and charge fees for bad stuff. in fact, instead of outlawing any "bad" thing not directly harming a person, the government should simply put a price tag on it, if the price tag allows too much of the bad thign to happen then the price shoudl go up. if a business can make a profit while doing a "bad" thing while paying enormous "bad thing" taxes then the value per bad thing ratio is so in favor of value that maybe we should let it go, and instead not allow the things that dont have as much value.
Once you get to this level public policy simplifies to pricing through taxes/fees.
In conclusion. $100 of economic output per unit of pollution is better than $50 per unit. we just pick the acceptable level and set the taxes and fees.
Of course im one of those people that thinks we should legalize drugs, prostitution, and such and just tax them at a level that people are comfortable with. Those revenues can be applied to subsidies for "good things" like green energy type stuff. or just lower other taxes in general, increasing economic output on the whole.
Albany NY gets a substantial amount of money by operating a landfill, right next to our western highway exit. The only complaint is that the air isn't clean enough, not that there's a landfill at all.
If your town has the land, try proposing "we can start a landfill an eliminate property tax increases for the next fifty years" at your next school budget meeting.
Is it just me or in the last five years has slashdot gone totally apeshit left-leaning?
It used to be a nice, informed, libertarian bunch. Now it's like a mob of drunken post-grads.
People try to post informed, reasoned discusions on technology issues and if the articles aren't geared "to the kids" the editors shoot them down. Every day, flamebait is posted and it's just a big pile-on. I mean really, I even saw some idiot try to slam libertarians the other day from the left for Chrissakes.
What happened? When will we ever get our old slashdot back? The net has always been free market and libertarian. When did slashdot decide to leave us?
USA seems to be saying to the world, "we don't care about the planet".
Maybe we're just not that impressed with fear-mongering.
Comment of the year
God, I love anti-American Slashdotters. In your zeal to bash the U.S. (remember, it makes you intellectual and witty!), you conveniently leave out that if the U.S. disappeared, there wouldn't be anybody to buy the damn imports. Bye-bye, economies.
As for global warming, there is so much contradictory evidence that it's a joke whenever someone claims a consensus (the opposite of science, by the way). We'll look back on this silly politically-driven hysteria the same way we look back on the "global cooling" fears of the 1970s. Nobody can explain the medieval warming period, nobody can explain the correlation with solar cycles, nobody can explain the warming in the rest of the solar system, etc. etc. etc. The media cherry-picks what it wants people to hear, because it makes for a better ratings-driven storyline if we're destroying the planet through the evils of our own successes.
One of these days, mankind is going to wake up and stop loathing itself just to feel smart. That is, if liberals lose their stranglehold on the media (perhaps George Soros will have to die first).
"Sufferin' succotash."
Firstly, the GP was not "bashing the US", but was pointing out the unsustainability of the US economy.
Secondly, your post is partly wrong, and partly misguided. The US is not the only country with wealth to buy imports. While an immediate cessation of US purchasing would be a blow to the global economy, it would survive. Anyway, what do you think is gonna happen as the US dollar (inevitably) devalues?
Finally, let's play spot the cliche!
1. God, I love anti-American Slashdotters.
2. there is so much contradictory evidence
3. this silly politically-driven hysteria the same way we look back on the "global cooling" fears of the 1970s
4. it makes for a better ratings-driven storyline if we're destroying the planet through the evils of our own successes.
5. if liberals lose their stranglehold on the media
well done dude - you've hit the jackpot!
The thing that makes me sad is people hate the U.S. or think we're a bunch of dimwits, but what they don't realize is that most of its citizens are economically enslaved and don't want things to be as they are, but they have no recourse. Voting is an illusion. Those in office come from families with wealth and power and are supported by those with wealth and power. And most of that takes generations to build, so it's an old boys club of old money that has a hegemony over the populace. If you aren't from the U.S. you probably have an idea exactly what that looks like as there are many historical examples.
This then, is what suprises me about people that hate the U.S. A very large majority of the U.S. populations is unhappy about the way things are in foreign and environmental policy and a large number of the remainder are kept ignorant. Perhaps it's not as bad as I see it. They're probably somewhat better, or maybe somewhat worse. Still not good.
Now the important question: do I have the wealth, connections, and know-how to navigate through the halls of power in corporate and government U.S. and get a huge number of very powerful yet also very fearful (of losing their power) people to change? No. The U.S. was founded by We the People and after 200 years, about the same number of people that ran it then, run it now. Given the dramatic increase in population, that shows just how much less We the People it is.
I think our government has drifted very far from what it once was, and an adjustment will occur. Those that will suffer the most will be those that have the least, just as it has always been, and this is not because the U.S. has changed! It is because we all haven't fundamentally changed. The U.S. has had a lot of power and been one of the largest nations for a while, and that brings out that fact more clearly, but we all meddle, we all think short-term, and we all hold onto what we have, often quite desparately.
Individually, many of us mature past that, but as nations? Very few nations can make that claim, and the bigger the nation, the harder it is to make it. There are too many "What if?" ways to become afraid. If China later on surpasses us economically, militarily, and in all other ways, do you think the World will be that different than it is right now with a different target for the World's angst?
No. Because we all have to change. Not just the U.S. And it will take more than knowing the definition of Socialism.
The difference is what, precisely? Other than that "republic" is a more precise term than "democracy" which is somewhat vague about the exact mechanism, nothing relevant.
You've obviously never played Civilisation.
Selfishness seems to have become the core value of America right now. The measure of all actions is self interest. Individuals and corporations are encouraged to act solely in their own self interest, for that, we are told is the best way to ensure the common interest. While there is some truth to this, overall it is dangerous delusion. We are all part of a larger civilization, and the fate of that civilization effects all of us.
Climate change is an issue that will effect all of us. And no matter how many deluded denials there are, no matter how loud those deluded denials are shouted, no matter much we look away from the unpleasant truth, the laws of physics remain. No matter the slippery and reassuring words of oil industry funded public relations people, the landslide of data supporting the predictions of climate scientists will remain.
Reducing carbon emissions is highly likely to cause great harm to corporations whose main income comes from oil extraction. Thus we see many of these oil interests working hard to prevent any effective reduction in carbon emissions. After all, it's just self interest. If you were facing the loss of billions and billions of dollars, wouldn't you be fighting it? Except that the oil companies' profits are coming at the expense of the future of our civilization. I believe that unless we as a society overcome our obsession with pure self interest, our civilization will enter a period of profound decline. Is that really in our best interest?
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
"Anyway, what do you think is gonna happen as the US dollar (inevitably) devalues?"
The market will correct and life will go on. You're new to this whole economics thing aren't you? I love watching you US haters pretend that your wishes are anywhere near reality.
This common refrain ("we won't reduce ours until they do so, too") is like two school-children arguing: "You first!" "Nu-uh, you first!"
You've gone right back to cherry picking just a few snippets of the broad range of facts I presented in order to argue that the U.S. is the worst. Policy decisions need to be made based on broad general facts and statistics. It cannot be based on a narrow hatred for a nation or nations.
e.g. Say the U.S. were to adopt nuclear power to the extent France has (78% of its electricity from nuclear). About 90% of the U.S. coal use is for electricity generation, as is about 25% of its natural gas use (source). (Petroleum is also burned for electricity, but accounts for less than 3% of electricity production in the U.S.).
Nuclear currently accounts for 21% of U.S. electricity generation. If that were increased to 78% with hydro and renewable electricity generation held steady, coal and gas consumption for electricity production would drop to just 17.6% of current levels. This would correspond to a 74% reduction in total coal use, and a 21% reduction in total gas use.
Factoring these reductions into U.S. CO2 production (same source as above), total emissions for the U.S. would drop from 5802 million metric tons to 3996 million metric tons. That's a 31% reduction in CO2 emissions without making a single change to how energy in the U.S. is consumed.
Oh come one, you know this is bullshit. Countries like that are still busy getting their economy up and running. You seriously think they should be held to the same standard as the US, who's carbon emission per capita is WAY higher than any of those countries ? (e.g. 6 times higher as China). Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
"Clever, but a non-sequitir. I imagine your +4 rating has more to do with your historical reference and playing to the anti-american-they'll-get-theirs-someday crowd then you actually having a point."
Or else, maybe those that rated the post understood it better than you. Just thing for your mind: Were the previous poster said "Finland plants thousands of trees a year so I don't see why the rest of the world can't do the same" I'd answer the same, so there goes your "anti-american" interpretation.
"Trees are a renewable resource that can be predictably grown and harvested"
So what?
1) A mature forest is an ecosystem that goes far, far beyond "a renewable resource that can be predictably grown and harvested".
2) In too many situations the people exploiting the lands are not those that have to live with the disaster coming later, but big fortunes rich enough to have a hard grip on those third world or in-development countries' governments (and do you know why they are third world or in-development countries? Exactly: because first world have already harvested their own forests for the most part -still it seems that it is countries like Brazil or Cambodya the ones that must take the hard part of the reforesting effort).
3) Even if were the natural population of the land the ones taking advantage of the forests, they are, again, third party or in-development countries with many more pressing needs than expending money on sustainable forest management. For instance, paying debt interests that point back to first world countries like USA.
All in all, saying "If USA can do it I don't see why the rest of the world can't" shows an utterly misrepresentation of the world and the situation of 2 out of every 3 people living on it -just exactly the kind of misconception that got Marie Antoinette missing the point why poor people were raging for bread... at Versailles there were no bread for a day, they would take cake!
"Unless, of course, your opinion is that the rest of the world is too stupid and impatient to treat wood like any other crop."
Statistically, the rest of the world is at the verge of dying from famine.
Per capita....
Great way to offset the reality.
US: 300 million
China: 1.5 BILLION
Translation, what China doesn't have on a per-capita basis, they make up for in sheer quantity.
What's more, the drive to modernize China will cause a per-capita increase.
Additionally, there are initiatives in the US already to reduce emissions. Sure, they may not move as quickly (the day before yesterday please!) as you'd like. But they ARE in progress.
Yet you want to excuse it because "Oh, they're a developing country!"
Essentially what you want is for us to wreck our economy around the same time China finishes building theirs.
Good idea! (NOT!)
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
The US tends to produce about $2,000 worth of goods for every ton of CO2 emissions.
China produces about $500 worth of goods for every ton of CO2 emissions
There's room to grow up (the EU averages about twice as much output as the US, and some EU nations that tend to rely heavily on hydroelectric and/or nuclear do much better than the US, such as France (being a G8 nation, and producing almost 3x as much goods as the US for the same amount of CO2 emissions), but the US is far from being the most inefficient nation.
I suspect that the US will always have higher CO2 emissions than much of Europe, due to the US climate (we do have some large cities in rather cold regions -- Minneapolis, for example), and our lower population density (transportation, including mass transit if viable, won't be as efficient as Europe).
OTOH, the US would do wonders if its electricity generation looked more like France's. If, in the US, we went from 20% nuclear power to 90% nuclear power (replacing the 70% of US power generated from natural gas, coal and petroleum), we'd basically eliminate the third of our greenhouse gasses emissions that come from electricity generation, and end up being producing more goods per ton of CO2 emissions. As a bonus, nuclear power has had an excellent track record powering another industrial nation (France). Too bad that the ecological left in the US tends to hate nuclear power.
No, actually, they don't.
If you follow this link you'll see that the emission of the US is still WAY higher than China, even as China has a much larger number of inhabitants. (data is from '96, couldn't find more recent data using a quick google search and I'm too lazy to keep on looking).
The US isn't doing nearly enough, since the US is so wastefull compared to the rest of the developed world it should be relatively easy to cut down, 'we' already demonstrated it can be done. E.g. increase the gas prices through taxation so people will stop buying ridicious cars. (Contrary to popular belief US gas prices are insanely low).