Wait, how old are we again?

[ciroccoj]

Oh for the...

You know, some days I feel like I should really, really not look at the news any more.

So this huge global environmental shindig is going on in Montreal, with scientists and environmentalists and everybody and their little dog Toto from all around the world talking about how to go further than Kyoto, and talking about how the ice caps are melting and the polar bears and Great Lakes are dying and little Polynesian islands are disappearing and New Orleans is sinking and all sorts of lovely stuff is going on. And how we all have to try to stop fouling our nests. And they're all sick and tired of pointing out the fact that the US is the wealthiest nation on earth and puts out 25% of emissions but refuses to do sweet bugger-all about it because Dubya is concerned about the American economy (which I guess means the rest of the world's leaders aren't concerned about their economies).

So, enough already, says the rest of the world. The Americans won't change. Just let them drive their big-ass SUVs while we ask poor kids in India to tighten their belts and make the necessary sacrifices in order to clean up this mess.

And then Paul Martin says, "To the reticent nations, including the United States, I say there is such a thing as a global conscience, and now is the time to listen to it."

And guess what? Apparently the American delegation is very, very angry and hurt by this. They are shocked and appalled. What crass tactlessness. What heinious back-stabbing. Well, says one source, "[i]t is not clear that the United States would have agreed to participate in new climate talks in any case, but chances now have been reduced to zero."

Um... lemme get this straight. The US pulls out of an agreement they signed on to. Stall talks with single-minded zeal for years. Insist that there is no such thing as Global Warming. For years. Show up at meetings and act like a huge immovable object, refusing to budge a single inch.

But... now it's Paul Martin's fault they're not going to play nice with the other kids? Because he said a couple of nasty words? Mainly, "Listen to your conscience"?

Eat. Me.





Edit: Point of clarification: for "the US" and "the Americans" please read "the US delegation", "American leaders", yadda yadda. This is annoyance directed at certain yahoos in charge, not the citizenry at large.

Comments

Grrrrr.

[shiningmoon.livejournal.com]

It sickens me, too. Apparently corporations (and their money) mean more than sustainability of the planet.

I'm angry and embarrassed that the rest of the world judges me because of the stupid money grubbing politicians that (ostensibly) represent me.

Re: Grrrrr.

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

I'm angry and embarrassed that the rest of the world judges me because of the stupid money grubbing politicians that (ostensibly) represent me.
I think a sizable proportion of the rest of the world is aware that Dubya and his ilk do not speak for all Americans. The proportion is a little less sizable after the last election, but still.

Apparently everyone in Montreal is very much looking forward to Bill Clinton making a speech on Friday :) Cause hey, he only messed around on his wife. Not the whole bloody planet.

Re: Grrrrr.

[linaelyn.livejournal.com]

<>I think a sizable proportion of the rest of the world is aware that Dubya and his ilk do not speak for all Americans.

You know, I do still worry that it's just the richest and/or most well-educated 5% of folks in other countries who know that. Those who have the internet savvy, travel budget, and international connections to make judgments of American individuals based on actual Americans, and not the American portrayed in various media outlets.

As a HUGE FAN of the Kyoto accord, and a charter member of the Green Party in California, I sometimes feel like an alien in my own nation. An illegal one, at that.

[mynuet.livejournal.com]

That seems a bit disingenuous, but on the other hand, I'm not a big fan of the Kyoto accords. From what I've read of it, the gist of it is "The United States does a lot of polluting, so the United States needs to give lots of money to other countries. Oh, and China and India aren't big and powerful like the US, so even though they're steadily gaining in terms of pollution, they don't have to stop polluting or give anyone any money, they just get money, probably from the US." I agree that more attention in general needs to be paid for the environment, but as an American I find that I generally oppose the general world trend for expecting us as a country to paste a gigantic 'kick me' sign over our own asses.

[(Anonymous)]

From what I've read of it, the gist of it is "The United States does a lot of polluting, so the United States needs to give lots of money to other countries."
I'm not sure I'd phrase it like that. I think it's more like "Countries that pollute a lot should try to pollute less. Especially if they are more likely to have the means to do so." I think making up 25% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions might qualify as polluting a lot.

I'm also not sure how wanting big polluters to do something about their pollution levels constitutes expecting them to paste a giant "kick me" sign on their back. I'm not sure how signing on to an agreement that has the many of the rest of us spending a great deal of money to curb pollution constitutes putting a "kick me" sign on our own backs.

Personally I'm just tired of waiting for the US to do anything for the rest of the planet as far as the environment is concerned. It's just simply not going to happen, not with Bush in charge. I've been quite happy to see the general trend at this last meeting as one of ignoring the American delegation. After all, the rest of the world makes up 75% of greenhouse gas emissions, and we all have plenty of cleaning of our own back yards to do. The rest of us seem (more or less) willing to make sacrifices for the environment. We should just get on with it.

The part that irritates me in this story is not that the US delegation is once again refusing to sign anything - frankly nobody expects any different by now - it's that now they're blaming Paul Martin for it. Say wha?

[mynuet.livejournal.com]

Well, we can agree that blaming Paul Martin's remarks is silly. I just have a problem with "Anyone not in favor of the Kyoto accords is EVIL and wants the planet to suffer!" I'm not the monster from Ferngully, but I'm not a big fan of the concept of "You're big and you pollute, so you get to follow these rules. These other countries are big, but they're not as big as you (yet), and they pollute, but not as much as you (yet), so they're allowed to keep on polluting as much as they want to."

Then again, I also don't believe that someone should have to give up half their income to taxes just because they happen to be rich. I'm just nutty like that.

[linaelyn.livejournal.com]

as an American I find that I generally oppose the general world trend for expecting us as a country to paste a gigantic 'kick me' sign over our own asses.

As an American, I entirely endorse the Kick Me Sign on our asses, if is does ANYTHING to dissuade us from the present course of ecological destruction. The richest and most educated kids on the block (whatever their nationality of origin) should not be the biggest bullies, the most wasteful of resources, and the most likely to piss on their own kitchen floor.

Noblesse oblige is something I endorse. But, hey, not everyone does.

[mynuet.livejournal.com]

We have vastly different worldviews, and I doubt either of us is going to convince the other to change their minds. To my mind, noblesse oblige is not the concept involved here, but rather whether simply by being bigger we are obliged to allow ourselves to be tyrannized by others. Forcing the US to conform to emissions standards is a worthy goal, and I'd be in favor of a viable plan to do so if it was fair. China isn't that far behind us in terms of emissions and is gaining steadily, as is India, but they would both be exempt, with no defined timeline for when that exemption would expire. To my mind that's not helping the environment, that's helping the economies of India and China at the expense of the United States. It's like saying that CNN can't make any political commentary, but since Fox News hasn't been on the air as long, it can. There's no way that I, as a person, would sign a contract that gives such favorable terms to the other parties of the contract, not without something in it to make it fair to me, so there's no way I can support that for my country.

But, like I said, we're different. We'll each vote our conscience and it'll all work out, right?

[linaelyn.livejournal.com]

But, like I said, we're different. We'll each vote our conscience and
it'll all work out, right?

Yes, absolutely. And huzzah for the Democracy that allows us to both do so. :-)

I'm sorry I came across so harshly there above. I see, in hindsight, that I was not the most gracious I've ever been in a political discussion. My apologies for being excessively um... excessive? Your rebuttal, while not enough to convince me of the error of my ways, does make some very valid points about the importance of balance and parity in international agreements. Thank you for stating it in a more gracious manner than I did.

[mynuet.livejournal.com]

It's okay, you weren't anywhere near as harsh as the vast majority of political "debate" online tends to be (from both sides). I understood what you meant to say, and tried to respond in kind. :)

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

China isn't that far behind us in terms of emissions and is gaining steadily, as is India, but they would both be exempt,
Um, quickie note of statistical interest: I can't find this year's data, but as of 2000, the US contributed 24.4% of world carbon emissions, China 12.1%, and India 4.7%. US output per person in 2002: 20.1 metric tons, China 2.7, India 1.2. (For comparison, Canada's is 16.5, the UK's 9.2, Germany's 9.8. Luxembourg's, bizarrely, is 21.1 per person. Who knew.)

You are right, China at least is catching up and some predict that by 2015 it may pollute as much as the States. And I think do think that needs to be addressed, soon. However, the US is the biggest polluter right now. It has been, for years, with less than a third of China's population. Not working to fix that, just because some day China and India may be just as bad... it doesn't make logical sense to me.

There's no way that I, as a person, would sign a contract that gives such favorable terms to the other parties of the contract, not without something in it to make it fair to me, so there's no way I can support that for my country.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Because I completely agree that that what's happening is that the big polluters with richer economies are being asked to take on the lion's share of the burden of cleaning up the mess... but I think that's the way it should be. I am willing to pay higher taxes and go back to using the bus 2 hours a day in -35C weather and be cold in my home in the winter and know that somewhere in India there are people who are getting away with not changing their ways very much, because I do think I'm getting something out of the deal: a cleaner world to pass on to my kids.

I also think it's fair to make less developed countries "pay" less than us to clean up the mess because, as far as I can tell, they're paying far more, right now, than we are for the environmental devastation we're all causing. Our crops aren't failing at the rates theirs are. Our heat waves are not as devastating as theirs. I could go on but I spare you ;)

But, like I said, we're different.
Vive la difference and all that ;)

Putting aside Kyoto and my own attitude towards American leadership for the moment, one thing that I didn't put up (which I will tomorrow, if I can find the link again) is that one of the very nice things about the Montreal conference is that although the federal, official US delegation didn't make much of a good impression on the other conference-goers, the many, many American mayors and governors and congressmen present did. They've put together a whole bunch of pretty impressive local initiatives to cut emissions that I at least would like to see adopted elsewhere. Canada seems a good place to start ;) Especially since, as I pointed out to somebody else in this discussion, we talk the talk, but don't always walk the walk when it comes to actually doing something about all of this.

[mynuet.livejournal.com]

Not working to fix that, just because some day China and India may be just as bad... it doesn't make logical sense to me.

The Kyoto Accord, as far as I know, has no expiration date. It would continue to be binding for the US long after China had surpassed us in emissions, and that kind of open ended agreement is something to be leery of, I think. Not to mention that, in the time it takes to figure out ways to have manufacturing industries that don't pollute, even more of our industries will have moved to China, where they don't have to comply with our stricter environmental laws. Assisting big business in giving the american working classes the finger is not really a bright political move, because when faced with cuts in their paychecks (or no job whatsoever) as opposed to potential benefits to the environment, very few people are going to choose to do away with their livelihood. Even Clinton, for all his talk, never even tried to submit the Kyoto Accord to the Senate for ratification. Sure, it would've faced an uphill battle and he would've taken a lot of flak for it, but he could have, and he chose not to.

And I may be a bad person, but I'm not the type who will pass up a big dinner because kids are starving in India. By the same token, 'a cleaner world to pass on' is a nebulous concept, while 'earning my degree without putting Milo in horrible schools' is a concrete one, and therefore I drive my gas-guzzling minivan for 80 miles every day I go to school. Caring about the environment enough to sacrifice is all well and good, if you have something you can sacrifice. The vast majority of blue collar workers don't.

Plus, the federal US government? SO not the people to be allowed to handle anything you want done well. The US government was designed to be as decentralized as possible, and over the years, as the central government has started accruing more power, spending has gone up and services and efficiency have gone down. The people who will actually get things done are the governors and mayors, unless they decide to do as New Orleans/Louisiana did and line their pockets while ignoring things that need to be done.

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

The Kyoto Accord, as far as I know, has no expiration date.
Actually, Kyoto expires in 2012 (http://www.yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=820&p=health&a=3); that's why the environmental conference was going on, to try to figure out what to do once it's over.

and therefore I drive my gas-guzzling minivan for 80 miles every day
I have no way of asking this in writing without sounding like a holier-than-thou bitch who's only asking so that I can smugly tell you you don't need a minivan after you answer. So please try to read it while imagining a tone of voice and expression that convey genuine curiosity, and not environmental Nazism: why do you own a minivan, and not a compact car?

(I'm mostly only asking because we've been told to buy a minivan ourselves, many times, and I have yet to hear a reason convincing enough for us to actually do it, but obviously other people's mileage will vary.)

::snork:: I actually didn't mean to make a pun there. And a bad one, to boot.

Caring about the environment enough to sacrifice is all well and good, if you have something you can sacrifice. The vast majority of blue collar workers don't.
No, that's true, and it would be the height of hypocrisy for me to compare myself and what I can afford to blue collar workers. My family may be in spectacular debt and may have lived in teeny tiny places for years with no adequate heat, little transportation, no access to child care or most forms of entertainment, only buying from the SallyAnn, yadda yadda, but in our case we at least have the hope that some day, after roughly 12 years of long hours and pittance wages, after Chris is a doctor we will be able to pay off our debts and even have a standard of living that most people can only dream of. It makes it easier to live with the privations when you know (or at least hope) to have a better tomorrow. And I know blue collar workers can't look forward to that.

However. Considering the fact that a huge swath of people in the Third World can only dream of the access to food, clean water, housing (inadequate though it may be) and basic health care that North American blue collar workers have... I think, as hypocritical as it is of me to ask blue collar North Americans to make sacrifices, I think I prefer that over asking people who are already starving and living with the deadly effects of global warming to make more sacrifices to clean up our common mess.

Plus, the federal US government? SO not the people to be allowed to handle anything you want done well.
Yeah, well, no argument from me there ;) Our own Feds somehow recently mislaid... damn, I can't find the figure for it here, but it was a spectacular amount of money, and their answer to the question Where did it go? basically boiled down to "Damn, had it just a minute ago... um... just put it down over by the... nope, sorry, no idea."

[mynuet.livejournal.com]

I drive a minivan because my sister gave it to me. Buying a new car is something to dreamt of for someday, when I have a degree and can move out of public housing and no longer face regularly questions like where is my food coming from and what do I do if the car breaks down. In other words, I'm not the right person to ask about the wonders of a minivan, because my basic requirement of a vehicle is "Does it run?" and "How much is it going to cost me up front and don't even mention a monthly payment unless it's less than $8?"

As for sacrifices, I'm not so much saying third world citizens should starve so we don't have to, but rather that I don't see a whole lot of point of destroying our economy so that we're facing third world challenges at home, while at the same time giving other countries a leg up so they stop facing those challenges. There's still parts of this country where running water is a luxury, and those are the ones that'll get hardest hit by stringent regulations.

I stand corrected over Kyoto having an expiration date. Chalk it up to my cynicism given whether governments in general, once given money, will ever give it back.

[sangerin.livejournal.com]

Point of clarification

Thanks, hon. It's minor, but it means a lot to some of us.

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

It's minor, but it means a lot to some of us.
Not so minor, IMHO. Especially seeing as how, while the upper echelons of the US government are twiddling their thumbs or actively trying to sabotage Kyoto, a few lower echelon (State and municipal) govs are doing their best to reduce emissions and doing a fair job of it.

And meanwhile, north of the 49th, our own gov... well, let's just say we get an A for talking the talk, and somewhere between a C and a D for walking the walk.

BTW have I mentioned how much your icon rocks?

[sangerin.livejournal.com]

shipperchick made it. Isn't it nifty? And it gets a lot of use!