Let's take a moment, shall we, and dig through the layers of conservative talking points on the Kyoto Protocol.
The main claim is that it's "unfair" because it requires emissions reductions in developed countries, but not in developing countries (especially China and India) -- a commonly cited rationale when senators refused to vote for it under Clinton.
This is, as many others have pointed out, a morally troglodytic argument. The developed countries put the CO2 up there. That's how they got developed. That's how they got rich. Of course they have an obligation to act first and do more to solve the problem. If you spend years crapping in your house, and then take a homeless person in as a roommate, you don't quibble with your new roommate over who cleans up the shit. You clean it up. It's your shit.
Oy.
But then you have another argument which, instead of insulting the intelligence and moral standing of those in the developing world, adopts an unctuous tone of concern for their wellbeing. Consider this bit from Inhofe's goofball speech:
The Kyoto Protocol's post 2012 agenda, which mandates that the developing world be subjected to restrictions on greenhouse gases, could have the potential to severely restrict development in regions of the world like Africa, Asia and South America -- where some of the Earth's most energy-deprived people currently reside.
...
If we allow scientifically unfounded fears of global warming to influence policy makers to restrict future energy production and the creation of basic infrastructure in the developing world -- billions of people will continue to suffer. ...
... I have made many trips to Africa, and once you see the devastating poverty that has a grip on that continent, you quickly realize that fears about global warming are severely misguided.
Well that's my gut reaction to African poverty!
Add to all this conservative insistence that Kyoto won't solve the problem (as though anyone ever claimed it would), and you come up with:
Kyoto's not enough to solve global warming, we shouldn't sign it until the developing countries sign it, and the developing countries shouldn't sign it because it will consign them to poverty.
Or to summarize: too little is too much to ask.
Behind the flurry of rhetoric, then, is simple defeatism: This is not a problem we can solve. So let's do nothing.
Oh, except:
Technology!
And, also:
A pony!
Comments
View as Flat
robertmacelvain Posted 10:05 pm
28 Sep 2006
In the year 1905, Nobel physicist, Albert Einstein, published his E=mc² EQUATION, which opened the door to THE WORLD OF THE PROTON GENIE, the door to all of the abundant energy that Earth will ever need. But, nobody looked or listened except the Energy Cartel, which stood to loose its enormous wealth and power if Einstein's EQUATION should ever become implemented.
Many have attempted to implement Einstein's EQUATION, but even the most promising successful efforts are routinely thwarted.
In brief review, "E=mc²" provides the basis for extracting and fusing PROTONS from ordinary, pure water, which will ultimately make everybody on Earth so idly rich and content from the benefits of this clean, virtually-free, and inexhaustible energy supply that nobody should ever again have to worry about pollution, war, or poverty, and Mother Nature will once again regain total control of any Climate Changes.
The Atomic Doomsday Clock reads, "7 minutes until Doomsday, and counting!"
Is it too late? Or, will some ordinary, individual Tinkerer (maybe just an average high school student) rise to the occasion and construct a simple physical demonstration of Einstein's EQUATION so that the entire World Population can become enlightened to the prospect of a new future of peace, contentment, and prosperity? Anything less will fail to uncork the PROTON GENIE for the benefit of mankind because "The Special Energy Interests" have sufficient resources to block any individual efforts to provide Cheap Power.
Please encourage your correspondents to link to this blog, and help spread Einstein's great-inspired VISION, "A Free-Energy Paradise On Earth."
http://howtosavecivilization.blogspot.com/
Permalink
kmp Posted 12:59 am
29 Sep 2006
If you spend years crapping in your house, and then take a homeless person in as a roommate, you don't quibble with your new roommate over who cleans up the shit. You clean it up. It's your shit.
No, you don't quibble over who cleans up the shit. You make the homeless person do it, because, well, if they want to live somewhere, they have to clean up your shit, and if they don't want to clean up your shit, they can go back to the streets.
More than likely, you would just hire a Mexican to clean up your shit, pay him $10/day, and then when he gets sick from cleaning up your foul shit, report him to INS so he can get shipped back over the border. Later than night you can complain to your cronies at the country club that you just can't get good help these days.
That is the American Way.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:32 am
29 Sep 2006
Dear Kaela and David,
And I thought I WAS cynical!!!
Actually, we need a better analogy. Let's not use roommate because it implies we are still in a position of power and choice (and get to decide by ourselves what happens). Maybe, after living alone single in a dumpheap, one decides to get married. Should one clean up before the spouse arrives or tell him/her on arrival, this mess is for you. (grin).
(Then, duck, run, be prepared to be along again.)
Although that doesn't quite hit the mark either. Maybe David can start an analogy contest!
We need to 1) clean up our own mess and 2) help the new neighbors build green so they don't have a mess to clean up (the technology transfer provisions of Kyoto that are often overlooked).
Developing nations supported the general trend of Kyoto because everyone knows the earth has to be cleaner, and they would love to be able to have a decent developed lifestyle without the mess!!!
(TV yesterday was full of pictures of the new hybrid and hydrogen cars under developement, the NY Times had articles about the growth of wind power in India and China, people in the developing world DO care about global warming.)
patrick
Permalink
kmp Posted 2:55 am
02 Oct 2006
Sorry if I did not respond with my usual sunny optimism. I guess the whole McCain Torture Bill thing has me down. The vast majority of Americans aren't even ruffled by the fact that we've just shit all over the Constituion, tossed habeus corpus out the window, brushed aside the Geneva Convention and have voted to allow torture as a legitimate means of questioning. In fact, the vast majority of Americans don't even know that this just happened, let alone are they upset by it.
I guess it just puts everything into perspective. If we can't even get riled up about torture, I can understand why people aren't protesting in the streets over Kyoto.
As for analogies, perhaps a better one is the age-old situation of neighbor's apple tree leans over your fence. Think of the epic neighborhood battles that this one inspires. A variety of "issues:"
You pick apples from boughs on your side of the fence. Your neighbor accuses you of stealing apples. You say they are on your side... you bicker.
Apples from his tree fall to the ground in your yard. Various creatures are attracted to this bounty, and you submit him a bill for an exterminator to remove "vermin." He refuses to pay - it's your yard.
Apples from his tree fall to the ground in your yard. You hire local high school boy to clean them up - submit him a bill. He refuses to pay. You both allow anger to escalate. You saw off the boughs on your side of the fence with a chainsaw. He sues you for damages to his tree.
Etc., etc., etc.
Now consider the following:
4. Apples fall to the ground on your side. You collect a bunch, make two apple pies. Bring one over to your neighbor's house. He invites you to share it with him along with fresh apple cider he has brewed. You trade recipes, enjoy pie, and have a few laughs together.
Which of the scenarios seems more likely in modern-day America?
Kaela
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:02 am
02 Oct 2006
Hi Kaela,
I think both scenarios are possible, but more likely is
"Apples from your neighbors tree fall into your yard, you do nothing until your spouse screams at you that it's your job, then you scream at your kid who does nothing until the damn things rot, but the winter snows mostly take care of the problem. You never see your neighbor to talk to him/her anyway. Too busy working, and too tired to do anything but watch tv, surf the net and post on Gristmill when you get home (grin)".
In any case, I share your cynicism about the torture bill. But, really, it's even worse. All the torture done in Iraq prisons, a lot of it was done by people who worked as prison guards in America.
My guess is that much of what they were doing wasn't really that new to them.
And that most Americans are mainly surpised that elsewhere in the world abusing people who you have put behind bars is considered a human rights violation!
It is certainly interesting to watch America's prestige run down the drain. But maybe most American's don't care what "foreigners" think. Sigh.
As to the moral issues, I agree with you. I fully expected outrage when the news broke and waited and waited and waited...
I alternate between anger, tears and laughter (see my many funny posts here (ummm, an once in a while a serious one (grin)).
Hey, nice pie! Have some more cider!
patrick
Permalink