Poop Shute

Once again, The U.S. is the lone nut

There is a group of nations known as The Group of 8. These are eight industrialized nations, that comprise an estimated 65% of the entire world's economy. They are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Britain, and the United States.

They have a yearly conference to discuss larger issues. This year's is coming up very soon. It's been announced early that one of the primary issues that will be discussed this year is a plan to cut carbon emissions worldwide by 50% over the next 43 years.

Already our government has given this plan the raspberry.

Silly Other 7, global warming is a conspiracy, created by liberal, bleeding-heart queers. It's just a tactic of evil to distract us from focusing on the peril of our own souls. You go right ahead and pump as much carbon as you like into the air, so long as you keep Jerry Falwell's ghost happy.

But seriously, what is up with this? The overwhelming mountain of data tells us that this IS a problem, and we just throw our hands up and shrug and say "sorry, it will hurt the economy." It's like we're a child and we're playing hide-n-seek with the other countries, and we think we made our way to the base. "Ha ha! I'm on base, I called the economy. My carbon emissions are untouchable. Nyah nyah!"

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

The White House spokesperson on the environment had this to say: "All the G8 countries are committed to pursuing an agreement, we just come at it from different perspectives."

I suppose by all, she is stressing that we are included. So... what exactly is our perspective? Is it that we just don't care? Or is it that we care, just so long as we don't have to do anything besides wear a lapel pin in the shape of a stupid ribbon? And by the way, if that is the statement of our executive branch's closest approximation to an environmentalist, it brings to mind an old saying; who needs enemies, when the environment has "friends" like her?

The majority of the industrialized world is mobilizing on this (except for us, China and India, who together make up a MASSIVE percentage of the total carbon emissions) and we still won't even discuss a compromise. We won't even agree to try to move in the right direction. We rejected the Kyoto Protocol outright. We've rejected this new plan outright, without even waiting to see all the details. The plan is formulated to hit these benchmarks by 2050. Is it not reasonable to think that we could clean up our act by then without crippling our economy? To say it would undo us seems like the thinking of a pretty limited mind to me. Close-minded and short-sighted.

If we can't do it in 43 years, then explain how THESE GUYS did it already in their little brewery. They aren't crippled. They're doing very well in fact.

I know one brewery can't serve as a literal model for every other category of industry, but they are proof that we can move in the right direction and not completely sacrifice "the bottom line."

One brewery is a baby step. While Bush and his cronies get all blustery about "...but the economy this... and the economy that... blah blah blah" I continue to hope that they would at least agree to more baby steps. You can reject a rigid plan, but just give us some alternatives. If we start now, forty years worth of those steps could take us miles in the right direction.

COMMENTS:

that's right...vote with your livers and your dollars. new belgium has a tasty seasonal out called Springboard!
j-ro 05.26.07 - 11:37 pm

Hold on there buddy. The India and China component on this is crucial. For example, if the U.S. were to start taxing carbon emissions on our manufacturing plants yet India and China don't apply any environmental policy what-so-ever, then there's a huge problem.
The U.S. manufacturing industries have already been hit hard by dumping from India and China. Apparently it's kind of hard to compete with factories that use children and prisoners as slaves when you're trying to pay your employees a living wage.
The only way around this of course is to apply a huge carbon emissions tariffs on all goods being imported from India and China... which will lead to cries of protectionism and create bad relations. Although I support this idea because it will force foreign manufacturing to clean up its act not only with respect to the environment but also with respect to the grotesque labor abuses that currently exist.
Political-Economic issues are very complicated. It's easy to sit at your desk and say "THE ENVIRONMENT IS IN DANGER, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT NOW" without understanding how something like taxing carbon emissions can lead to a huge upsets in the global economy.
therealdavid 05.28.07 - 1:48 pm

David, you've said nothing that I didn't already know. I get all that. What you're discussing would be a problem if we were to push too hard too fast into cleaning up. I'm talking about baby steps here. I again refer you to the link to NEW BELGIUM that I listed. It is possible to clean up energy use without damaging profits.
And let me be clear, I am not necessarily saying we should subscribe to any and all environmental plans that the rest of the world comes up with. I will reiterate; baby steps would do for now. But this administration would rather shake its head and walk away whenever the word "environment" gets mentioned, citing the economy as our reason.
How well do you think our economy will be doing when the sea level starts moving into cities (New Orleans), or the air is even less breathable (Phoenix and LA), or cancer numbers continue to climb all across the country?
From my perspective, using the economy as a reason for doing nothing seems wholly inappropriate. I see these baby steps that I mentioned as preventive maintenance against further damage to our economy. Maybe we should ignore the plans of other world leaders, but start SOMETHING, and start it NOW, and consistently strive towards something better. Its the only choice.
Joey 05.29.07 - 1:46 pm