« Breath of Fresh Air | Main | The Shape of Things to Come »
January 12, 2006Short-Sighted Environmentalism
Posted by Rob Carey under Current Affairs
Responses (2)
So it's been 51 degrees here in NYC the past couple of days. And if such balmy January days in the Northeast are the result of global warming, then I say: Hand me the aerosol can!
Come on, I'm just kidding. Don't be so touchy.
Look, I am concerned about global warming just like so many others. But when it comes to the widely-proposed solution--the Kyoto Protocol--and the pressure that's often put on the U.S. to sign it, I say: Enough already--the damn thing is hopelessly flawed! Here's why:
To my knowledge, of the several dozen countries that have signed the treaty, none of them is named China or India--places where fully one-third of the world's population resides. You see, only "developed" countires were urged to sign Kyoto, and these two nations are not yet in that category, says the EU, the UN, and other treaty proponents.
Yeah, huh? Tell that to the tens of thousands of Chinese citizens who were recently poisoned by not one but two massive chemical spills from industrial plants into major rivers that serve as sources for drinking water. Even worse, the pollution floated right over the Chinese border (what, the soldiers didn't detain it because it lacked the proper papers?) and into Russia, where it sickened thousands more. Oh yeah, there's even more--the Chinese government denied for days that either spill took place, which allowed many more people to drink the water than should have. Forget environmentally irresponsible--that's downright inhumane.
And as for India, I've heard that a few companies have opened a few outsourced offices over there. You know, only like several thousand of them. Check the business pages--I'm not the only one who thinks that India's become an international economic player.
My point: China and India are developed nations, at least industrially. And pollution knows no bounds. Why on earth, then, would the U.S. agree to knocking flat its economy for the next several years by placing incredibly costly, burdensome restrictions on companies here, just so other nations can pollute like mad, catch up to us in markets where we have currently have an advantage, and cause detrimental climate change anyway? There's no good reason I can think of.
Let's get these two nations to sign onto Kyoto before we do. Otherwise, let's just scrap the whole idea.
Respond to article (2)TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5cc553ef00d8346b223e53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Short-Sighted Environmentalism:
Comments
While you are right that China and India should sign as well, we (as well as the other G8 countries) have classified them as "undeveloped". They are not generally included in the discussions or expectations of the developing countries.
Your comment about if US signed the Kyoto treaty that it would place.."incredible, costly, burdensome restrictions on companies here".. seems as tired as the pleas to sign it. Many multinational companies (in fact any that want to continue to compete internationally) are voluntarily following the treaty guidelines both here and abroad. As are many solely US based companies. And imazingly enough, most are experiencing a postive gain, not a negative one.
And finally, did you realize that although the US accounts for only 5 percent of the world's population, Americans consume 26 percent of the world's energy. (American Almanac)
I don't pretend to know all the details of the treaty, but if it's so flawed, why then have we not offered a better solution? Something needs to be done. We can't continue to consume as we do without grave concequences.
Posted by: Amy Spatrisano | Jan 13, 2006 6:12:48 PM
The phrase "costly, burdensome restrictions" is accurate, I'd say, because even the enviro-sensitive EU acknowledges the point. The difference is that the EU feels the benefit is worth the cost of shaving .5 to 1 full percentage point off of each nation's GNP each year, while the U.S. government feels otherwise.
Also, please keep in mind that as our 5 percent of the population consumes 26 percent of the energy in the world, we are also producing far more than 5 percent of the world's goods and services. In other words, citizens of other nations are benefiting directly from our energy consumption.
Environmentally, can the U.S. do better? Of course. But can the U.S. afford Kyoto as is? Of course not.
Posted by: Rob Carey | Jan 17, 2006 1:20:05 PM
Subscribe to the RSS Feed
