Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Colin Grabow, Aug 26, 2002.
Want to save the planet? Get rich.
Another good link:
The Kyoto Treaty is about developed countries tackling their own "grand" environmental arguments: greenhouse gases, species extinction, global warming.
None of this has anything to do with pollution problems in third world countries. The fact that the Kyoto proponents would claim concern for the third world as their rationale is a joke.
The US does apparently only create 1/4 of the world's pollution, so it's only right that the rest of the world, which obviously creates 3 times as much pollution, should have to take steps and not the US. Sure the planet needs saving, but is it fair that executives of large American industrial companies see the value of their stock options reduced?
The UK creates no pollution as we, in an early effort to stop pollution, decided to close down all of our industry in the 80s.
I agree with most of what he says, including any/all of the following:
"Development is not simply valuable in itself, but in the long run it will lead the third world to become more concerned about the environment. Only when people are rich enough to feed themselves do they begin to think about the effect of their actions on the world around them and on future generations."
True, but it doesn't explain why US foreign aid as a % of GDP is at or near an all-time low, nor does it explain why as the richest country in the world, the US isn't really thinking about the effect of our actions on the rest of the world.
"Many Europeans chastised the the Bush administration for not caring enough about sustainability, especially in its rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. They are probably correct that the United States decision was made on the basis of economic self-interest rather than out of some principled belief in world development. But in Johannesburg the administration can recast its decision as an attempt to focus on the most important and fundamental issues on the global agenda: clean drinking water, better sanitation and health care and the fight against poverty."
Will they do this? I doubt it, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.
Then I'm sure you won't miss the $400 billion dollars worth of goods that the UK imports from nations with industry every year.
That is, if you REALLY want the UK to be innocent of pollution.
Finally a fellow traveler sees the hypocrisy of the International Leftists!!! LOL!!!
Twice in one VERY short thread Mr. Cam COMPLETELY agrees with GringoTex!!! WOW!!! GringoTex, have you secretly morphed into a NEO-CON that posts leftist lunatic rantings to tweak CONSERVATIVE'S sensibilities???
I read that article with great interest a couple of days ago. I too have to agree with the premise of developing the global south first and foremost and at almost any cost. However, that means that the industrialized north must make a concerted effort to limit the greenhouse gases it exposes the rest of the world to. Why? Because the global north has the means to, that's why. Global warming is real and it is caused by human development as many debates in this forum have reasserted.
Hmm...shall I take this slowly? The UK used to have a lot of heavy industry as one would expect from the birthplace of the industrial revolution. However, a sharp period of recession coupled with the government's hard-line anti-union stance (withdrawing much of the subsidies which exist for industry in other parts of the world for example) lead to the closure of hundreds of factories and thousands of jobs. Many parts of the north of England are still an industrial wasteland as a result. In ten years we went from being a major industrial nation to a minor one. This all took place roughly from 1975-1985, which is before the whole in the ozone layer was discovered and before environmental issues were regarded as important. So why, you may ask, did the UK government take this step of wiping out pollution producing industry before the issue was regarded as important? Well, the answer is they didn't. These policies had nothing at all to do with environmentalism. I...was...joking. I'm sorry if I didn't make this point more apparent. It was very irresponsible of me. Something like that could confuse a stupid person.
I can't believe you all didn't see the satire in his statement.
By the way the USA 25% of the pollution but also 25% of the worlds production.
The US does not create 25% of the world's pollution.
I misread it. My bad.
I believe it's only 25% of a specific emission, IIRC.
Wait a sec, global warming is caused by humans because...bigsoccer.com says so?
At the risk of turning this into a global warming debate, which is not what I intended this thread to be, why did the earth experience fluctuations in temperature long before industrialization if humans are to blame?
face it, you were outdone in that one colin.
start another thread if you want to talk about global warming then. i actually agreed that the developing world shouldn't focus on it!