The Summit has been cancelled because of the London bombing. A lot of things were going through my mind the past couple of days. I would like to mention them, even though I can't figure out if the bombing changes anything or not.
Yesterday on the way home from work I overheard some of Tony Blair's remarks as well as President Bush's about the G8 Summit. Bush's comments were typical of American foreign policy: we don't want to put limits on our CO2 emissions...and we don't want to give any more money to Africa. Did this surprise anyone? In fact, the only thing I'm surprised about is that President Bush had to fly all the way to Scotland to tell them we weren't going to do anything.
This dovetails with all the hooplah lately about John Bolton and whether or not he should be nominated as Ambassador to the UN. Truthfully, I don't think it will make that much difference. No matter who our face to the UN is, he or she will still say the same things, do the same things: i.e. veto anything that goes against what we want to do or what Israel is doing. Our foreign policy is based on capitalism and political hegemony.
I guess what bothers me so much is that all the things Tony Blair was pushing for are good, responsible, humanitarian things. They are blatently good. I can't see how anyone could disagree with cutting back on CO2 emissions or debt relief unless they are the CEO of Halliburton or Chase-Manhattan Bank and are at risk to lose money.
This is getting pretty long. I think I'll end my rants for today. Next time: "Why I'm not a pacifist."
7 years ago
6 comments:
I heard about the bombings on npr this morning....and I saw Bush giving a press conference with the president of Denmark the other day. When questioned what he might do/say at the G8, and about what kind of process he'll go through to choose the next supreme court justice, he totally dodged the questions and ended up giving blathering ridiculous evasive speeches about "fear" and "terror." I despise that man.
I would guess that more tax money is wasted in a year on government subsidies, tax breaks for the wealthy, Senator pet projects, defense contractors, etc., than will EVER be wasted on environmentalism.
I offer you a challenge, Mssr. Glasnost, to give me one example of environmental overspending by the government.
Ah, statistics! Faceless numbers that are so easy to spin!
Steel prices are up $8 a ton? Well, how much was the price per ton before? If it was something like $800, then that's only a 1% increase. It could help to have some perspective here.
What sorts of unreasonably high standards for lead smelting have destroyed that industry?
$1400 for forty acres comes out to $35 per acre. What disturbs me about this anecdote was that he was charged at all: $35 dollars to scour an entire acre of ground for arrowheads? That couldn't even cover the labor to guarantee an acre as arrowhead-free. The company was definitely extorted with some sort of snake oil certification.
What exactly is the "metal industry"? Why is it coupled here with the fishing industry? Have you read about some of the contamination and diseases found at these fisheries?
Once again, what is this 500% price increase for Douglas firs relative to? The oil crisis of 1973, which triggered inflation and recession probably had a bit to do with it, too. Was it solely "bureaucratic regulations" that factored in the price increase?
As for the housing development, after slashing total units by over 80%, high-end rents increased only 33%, low-end rents by only 10%. These statistics seem somewhat fishy: if we assume that all of the units go for the highest rent ($360 vs. $480), that's a loss of over $3 million. They would have to have raised rents higher than that, and no wonder they scrapped the project. I have to wonder, though: what sort of environmental pressure was being exerted? Was this some sort of overcrowded tenement that got detected and shut down before unfortunate minority populations got shoved in?
That said, I have to agree with Glasnost that tree-hugging environmentalists generally upset me. As with any other religious zealot, they are unwilling to accept any practical compromise viewpoints or solutions. As an example, a bunch of environmentalist morons attacked Apple recently for its "anti-environment" policies, all of which were based on what can kindly be termed misinformation. That's not to say, however, that the environment is unimportant or that certain steps need to be taken.
In the case of the G8 Summit and the Kyoto Protocol, the official US stance is ridiculous. Scientists are generally in accord that human activity is most likely responsible for global warming and something needs to be done about it. These are not environmental loonies, mind you, but scientists. Incidentally, the Bush administration has been accused--by scientists--of interfering with scientific research and distorting the results of researchto fit policy. Don't blame this on environmental wackos.
Well spoken, Dan. I had similar thoughts when I was reading your statistics, Glasnost. One of your statistics used the phrase" and many of the others complained of regulations biting into an industry or its profits.
The words "unreasonably high" don't mean anything without quantification. "Unreasonably high" in whose point of view?...The CEO of a petroleum company?
Industry has shown, time and again, that it cares very little about the environment...at least not enough to properly safeguard the rest of us from their polutants. Did you ever see Erin Brokovitch? That company was knowingly allowing radioactive and industrial poisons to enter into the town's water supply--killing who knows how many people.
If an environmental group pushes for legislative change, they're called quacks and zealots. If an oil company pushes for legislative change (i.e. loosening of regulations), they're called capitalists.
I don't like the double-standard. However, on the whole, I am also bothered by militant environmentalists. But that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about responsible legislation...and capitalists are not moral until it's in their interest to be so.
And I'm sure the "hard facts of ecology" - as decreed by industrialists - is God-given truth.
I'm not trying to be obstinate. I just don't think we should resort to name-calling and painting environmentalists as "pseudo-scientists." In so doing, you side-step the need to actual confront or disprove their argument by merely deriding them...categorizing them as quacks.
There is a distinction between an actual environmental scientist and an environmental nut-job, a.k.a. a "tree-hugger". In the latter case, I wouldn't even deign to classify them as pseudo-scientists. These are the sorts of people labelling genetically modified crops as "Frankenstein foods" and "killer tomatoes", charged language aiming to discredit methods that could greatly enhance quality of life worldwide. I'm not going to automatically respect someone's opinion just because they claim to be pro-environment. Certainly there is a need to understand and investigage the issues, precisely so I can dismiss their ridiculous, uninformed nonsense.
Once again: I recognize and respect the real environmental scientists out there. That someone is an environmentalist is not a bad thing, but there are always zealots that ruin the very point they're trying to make. These are the people I distrust.
And I don't take industry opinion without at least a grain of salt, either. I am quite cynical about our corporate society, including advertising.
Post a Comment