Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Opposes G8 Climate Proposals

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the gotta-love-smog-as-an-export-commodity dept.

Science 845

elrond writes "The US appears to have summarily rejected draft proposals for G8 members that would have agreed to tougher measures for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. The BBC reports that leaked documents have indicated the positions of the various world powers, from the timetable-setting of Germany to the US's intractable stance. Red ink comments on the documents hint at the US's irritation: 'The US still has serious, fundamental concerns about this draft statement. The treatment of climate change runs counter to our overall position and crosses 'multiple red lines' in terms of what we simply cannot agree to ... We have tried to tread lightly but there is only so far we can go given our fundamental opposition to the German position.'"

cancel ×

845 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Please Remember (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19293963)

Re:Please Remember (1)

Xiph1980 (944189) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294475)

Nice find :)
This is the best first post I've seen so far ;)

sanctions are inevitable (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19293977)

surely its only a matter of time before europe imposes trade tarrifs on US goods? Otherwise they are basically subsidising US industry, operating with far looser environmental standards. I'm sure the US will complain and 'retaliate', but I don't see any other option in the long term.

Re:sanctions are inevitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294029)

surely its only a matter of time before europe imposes trade tarrifs on US goods?
I doubt it. For all their bluster, the EU is not ready to commit economic suicide over environmental concerns.

Re:sanctions are inevitable (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294265)

talk about american egotism. The EU is a bigger market than the USA, and one that would survive quite happily without you. The USA manufactures very lttle these days, most of its made in china, and your currency is worth so little that your value as customers is steadily dropping.
Dont expect the EU to shed too many tears about losing the USA as a market.

Re:sanctions are inevitable (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294031)

Let's hope so.
USA seems to be saying to the world, "we don't care about the planet".

Re:sanctions are inevitable (5, Interesting)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294285)

"USA seems to be saying to the world, "we don't care about the planet""

I think the current US administration made this position pretty clear a couple of years ago when they struck down a WTO proposal for "origin of timber" certification to reduce illegally logged timber coming from protected rainforests.

In that case there was absolutely no doubt that striking down the proposal would cause deforestation within the designated national parks of third world countries, but it was still struck down by the Bush's representative "in the name of free trade".

Re:sanctions are inevitable (2, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294047)

Something like "environment tarrifs" would actually fit to the market-driven hardcore-capitalism position. Let the market regulate things. If we want environment-conscious products, make sure the pollution is more expensive.

Re:sanctions are inevitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294075)

Something like "environment tarrifs" would actually fit to the market-driven hardcore-capitalism position. Let the market regulate things. If we want environment-conscious products, make sure the pollution is more expensive.
That position lasts just about as long as it takes the US to launch countertariffs. And then it is nothing more than a down and dirty trade war.

Re:sanctions are inevitable (4, Interesting)

MrMr (219533) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294189)

But it already is a down and dirty trade war:
Both the Clinton and the Bush administration have implicitly admitted that the US cannot compete in a free market system if the real cost of pollution costs would have to paid. Therefore allowing pollution for profit is just one of the weapons in a trade-war, just like for instance allowing copyright infringment for profit, or manipulating exchange rates to damage your opponents.

Re:sanctions are inevitable (1)

TomatoMan (93630) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294359)

I believe you, but I'd love to see some references / data to support this assertion so I could defend it myself.

Re:sanctions are inevitable (5, Interesting)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294451)

Both the Clinton and the Bush administration have implicitly admitted that the US cannot compete in a free market system if the real cost of pollution costs would have to paid.
Certainly that's relatively verifiable from a CO2 emissions basis. While not perfect (what data is?) this table [wikipedia.org] provides a rough analysis of GDP with respect to CO2 emissions. The US does not fare well in comparison to many European countries. On the other hand, the US is also far from the bottom, being streets ahead of China. The US is at the very least notably above the world average. Most of the worst offenders in terms of efficiency are former Soviet States that presumably are stuck with primitive industrial infrastructure, and not much of an economy. Given that table, however, there is plenty of other finger pointing that can go on. Canada, which likes to think well of itself, fares little better than the US.

Re:sanctions are inevitable (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294255)

It might be dirty, but it will be short. The US is a heavy import country, and will truely and utterly f..cked if it is buycotted by Europe and China. The only road to survival will be to kiss Chinese ass, or surrender to Europe..

Re:sanctions are inevitable (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294291)

What is China's interest in boycotting the US again?

Any room for reality in this scenario?

Re:sanctions are inevitable (0, Flamebait)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294495)

The only road to survival will be to kiss Chinese ass, or surrender to Europe..

Which is exactly what the "environmentalists" want! [boston.com]

Nation. A 19th-century notion of national sovereignty allows sub groups to pursue agendas without regard for their effects on the whole. But this wrongly assumes that the health of the whole is a matter of indifference to the group. The United States has long refused to temper its claim to radical independence from all other nations, but that both defines the source of America's disproportionate ecological destructiveness and impedes every effort to mitigate it. There will be no stopping environmental degradation until nations stop thinking of independent sovereignty as an absolute. Climate change respects no borders.

Property. In America, where full citizenship was originally granted only to property owners, we are what we have. The pursuit of happiness equals the accumulation of possessions. This cult of "more" drives an economy that defines its health by growth, its market by the globe. In families, the success of a second generation is defined only by its surpassing in affluence the first. This merciless consumption divides people into "haves," "the have less," and "have nots," but it also eats the environment alive. Sufficiency, simplicity, and a sense that the treasures of the earth are the property of all people must become notes of the new America.
Let's see, no borders, no property rights... sounds like no America to me. I think you'll find that many environmentalist are using their environmentalism as a cover for trying to forward socialist ideals over capitalism. Surrendering to a socialist Europe and communist China is exactly what these people want!

Re:sanctions are inevitable (1)

achillean (1031500) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294175)

I think you're mistaking for what market-driven means. If the government imposes tariffs on certain products/ services, then the government is actively changing the market by endorsing certain products (i.e. not letting the market regulate itself). In a true free market capitalism world, the government would stay out of this kinda business and let the consumer decide. If the consumers purchase environmentally-friendly products en masse (which will probably be more expensive), then companies will start catering to those people, and then the market will regulate itself into making more environmentally conscious products.

Re:sanctions are inevitable (5, Insightful)

chriss (26574) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294305)

In a true free market capitalism world, someone would own the air, water etc. and you would have to pay them for the right to pollute. Some senators therefore proposed to privatize everything, so somebody would care if you destroy these things. I think we are in enough trouble already with patents and intellectual property to see that making everything "owned by someone" is not necessarily the best option. But this is what a real market version would look like. Today we have a world where a number of resources are provided "for free" instead of having a price, which is part of the problem.

Interlectual Property is not scarce (1)

slysithesuperspy (919764) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294409)

The problem with IP is that it isn't scarce. The reason for property rights is to allocate scarce resources, so IP cannot be a property right in a real free market.

Re:sanctions are inevitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294493)

Thats bs, if someone wouldn't like his 'air' he couldn't simply switch providers. The owner of the air would have a monopoly...

Re:sanctions are inevitable (4, Insightful)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294327)

The only problem with a pure free market is that it acts under the assumption that what makes the best business sense will be inherently good for everyone. Just because the average consumer want to pay less for goods in exchange for more environmental damage, that doesn't mean it is a good idea. The reason that we have (and need, unfortunately) governments is that often what the best choice for society at large is a poor choice for a give segment of that society. A dying environment is a bad thing for society. It may be fine for specific business or acceptable for some consumers, but that does not make it a good choice or outcome.

Re:sanctions are inevitable (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294353)

It still seems like a capitalist would prefer consumption taxes to production caps and the like.

Re:sanctions are inevitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294289)

The fact polluting our planet costs less was because of capitalism in the first place. Applying the cause of the problem as a solution probably will not help.

That idea is genius. We need more ideas like this. (2, Interesting)

elucido (870205) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294425)

I'm convinced, due to knowledge about human nature, that the climate change problem will only be solved with market-driven solutions.

I don't think the government, or governments, can solve it without the private industry. Private industry is the only organizer of the masses and it must be utilized in every way on every level.

It must be cheaper to run a business in an environmentally friendly manner. It also must be cheapter to start a business that is dedicated to solving climate change.

I propose that we allow people to start small businesses, tax free, for 5 years, as long as that business is dedicated to the principles outlined, of reducing environmental harm. This is what worked for the internet, so many businesses moved to the net because theres no internet taxes. One way to bring business support is to simply remove taxes.

Are you telling me that Democrats and Republicans can't agree to cut taxes for this issue? If we want environment-conscious businesses, we need to cut taxes for environmentally conscious businesses. I think Tarrifs are another one of those old ideas from the last century. We are globalized now, and the elements of our system which are globalized, are tax laws, and business laws.

We need to update business laws so people can start corporations who's main goal is not simply profit in money, but also to advance social goals. If a business is started by law with the social agenda of being environment conscious and of preserving the environment, then it will be illegal for that business to go against the social agenda set forth through law.

So lawyers, who understand business law, need to team up with environmentalists, who need to team up with social activists, who need to term up with business and economics majors, and together they can come up with something similar to the GPL, or creative commons, only this would be a legal document and script for starting eco-corporations.

This eco-corp document should redefine corporation, into eco-corporation, and being eco-friendly should come before all else.
At the same time, by redefining what a corporation is and how it functions, it will give people the freedom to organize the market to solve climate change. I see this is a legal/technical problem of business law. The way it can be solved is through new corporate models, new classifications, new laws to manage corporations on the local level.

If anyone here is a lawyer and capable of understanding exactly the impact the GPL had on the open source movement, could something similar to the GPL be invented to assist the climate change movement? And is anyone interested in starting a project to do it?

Respond with your comments, this post is designed to advance discussion and promote new idea generation. New ideas are needed. Old ideas like tarrifs, and taxes, only make the government bigger but don't create the fundamental changes anymore than having the government build an OS would create the open source movement. So think bigger.

Re:sanctions are inevitable (5, Insightful)

neoform (551705) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294445)

Let the market regulate things. If we want environment-conscious products, make sure the pollution is more expensive.

I never understood this mentality..

Why do we have police? Because citizens, as good as we are, cannot be trusted to police ourselves without a ton of laws and police to make sure we do what we're supposed to.

Why should the market be any better? It's run by those same people who could not be trusted to maintain law biding composure.

The market is fueled by it's self which is why companies are able to sell people products they don't really want or need (diamonds?), while consumers have the choice in the end, they also manipulate the hell out of us and try to convince us that their products are really safe/healthy/environmental.. when they're not.

A perfect example would be "0 Trans Fats" vs "No Trans Fats" (yes, there's a difference). No transfats means just that; 0 means it could be "0.9g Transfats" but because of the current standards, they can truncate the number to become "0".

Who then is going to stop a company from lying about how environmentally friendly their products are if there is no actual regulation?

Re:sanctions are inevitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294065)

You have to be kidding me. Sanctinos would hurt Europe much more than it would hurt the U.S.

Dream on.

Re:sanctions are inevitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294119)

The EU is the worlds biggest single market. How many american companies do you think can afford to kiss that goodbye?

Re:sanctions are inevitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294145)

The GDP of the EU and America are near exactly equal. The primary difference is the EU relies on America buying many of its exports. This would be a problem for the U.S. but looking at the track record it wouldn't be much to just start buying the products from East Asia or any other developing countries.

Re:sanctions are inevitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294443)

climate change is hurting everyone. read the news. If missing out on hamburger and hollywood exports is part of the solution, we will struggle through.

Re:sanctions are inevitable (2, Funny)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294121)

surely its only a matter of time before europe imposes trade tarrifs on US goods? ... but I don't see any other option in the long term.

Other option: Not imposing trade tariffs.

Just trying to help.

Nicolas Sarkozy Must Deal Tough with America (0, Flamebait)

reporter (666905) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294133)

The trouble with Americans is that we devalue science education. Creationism is making a comeback in parts of the deep south. Several presidential candidates claim that evolution is a lie.

With this attitude, naturally we Americans reject scientific conclusions: e.g., the warming of the globe due to human activity.

Doubtless, some very reputable scientists reject the notion that global warming is due to human activity. However, on crucial matters of national importance, the right approach is to seek the consensus opinion. When the federal government mandated vaccinating all American school children, some reputable scientists dissented. They believed that some children might be killed via allergic reactions or the weakened pathogens (used as the basis of the vaccine). Yet, because the majority of reputable scientists favored vaccinations, the government proceeded to require immunizations for all school children.

The consensus approach is the right approach. It also works in the case of global warming. The consensus among reputable scientists is that human activity is causing global warming. We must immediately deal with the situation by reducing the production of greenhouse gases.

Here is where Nicolas Sarkozy enters the picture. As the leader of a nation that has resolutely declared the supremacy of Western values, he has the political power to confront Washington. If we Americans are too stupid to control greenhouse gases and too stupid to curtail the importation of Chinese products (of which much is toxic -- e.g., toothpaste, catfish, and the like), then Sarkozy should lead the European Union in banning imports of American products. If Americans want to destroy the environment and their health, the Europeans should refuse to be an accomplice to this idiocy.

Sarkozy shows that you can be simultaneously pro-environment, pro-business, and pro-labor -- without being an idiotic cowboy.

P.S.
Perhaps, Sarkozy should consider taking military action against the United States. Destroying the environment is equivalent to brutally using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against Europe.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy Must Deal Tough with America (0, Troll)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294331)

The trouble with Americans is that we devalue science education. Creationism is making a comeback in parts of the deep south. Several presidential candidates claim that evolution is a lie.

With this attitude, naturally we Americans reject scientific conclusions: e.g., the warming of the globe due to human activity.


Here is a little something from that evangelical magazine, Newsweek [msn.com] :

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.
The consensus approach is the right approach. It also works in the case of global warming. The consensus among reputable scientists is that human activity is causing global warming. We must immediately deal with the situation by reducing the production of greenhouse gases.

Really? [canada.com]

Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming...
Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action...
So, tell me again, why should we wreck our economy over something that not everyone can agree on? Why should I change my lifestyle and/or lose my job for when the loudest cheerleaders of global warming are the world's largest carbon producers (Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, John Edwards and so on) and at the same time, the one attacked the most (George Bush) has a home [theconservativevoice.com] that produces less carbon the average, small, energy efficient abode!

In 1999, the Bushes purchased approximately 1600 acres of land, complete with house and outbuildings, eight miles northwest of Crawford, Texas. They later hired an associate professor of Architecture from the University of Texas at Austin, David Heymann, to design a new 5,000 sq. ft. house and to convert existing buildings into Secret Service quarters and guest houses.

The new house is a model of energy efficiency. Central to the energy efficiency of the house is a geothermal heating and cooling system which pumps water through pipes extending three hundred feet beneath the ground surface, using only twenty-five percent of the total electric usage of the house.

Pipes connected to a heat pump inside the house circulate water into the ground and back up through the house. As the water returns to ground level it is a constant 67 degrees F, sufficient for summer cooling and winter heating. The water for the outdoor pool is heated by the same system, which proved to be so efficient that plans to install solar energy panels were cancelled.
Compared to Gore's House

According to a report published by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, Al and Tipper's 20-room home and pool house consumed nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006 - more than twenty times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours per home - while the Nashville Gas Company billed the Gores an average of $1080 a month for natural gas ($536 a month for the main house and $544 for a heated pool house). That comes to nearly $29,300 in gas and electric purchases for the Gores in calendar year 2006.
HERE [cnsnews.com] is another source just incase you don't like the first one.

George Bush may be a nemesis of the global green movement and Al Gore its hero, but the president's home is arguably far more environmentally-friendly than the home of the man he defeated in the 2000 election.

Bush's "Western White House" in Crawford, Texas, has been praised as "an eco-friendly haven" while the former vice-president's home in Nashville, Tennessee was criticized this week for heavy power consumption.
If global warming was really going to destroy the world, don't you think the Goracle's house would be more efficient? Why should American's change their lifestyle and wreck their own economy when those who should know better are not doing the same? I'm certainly not the global warming expert that Al Gore is, and I don't see him doing shit except flying around and getting paid for speeches and writing books. If it were really that bad, wouldn't he be renting a room from Bush?

Who says it would wreck the economy? (5, Insightful)

shmlco (594907) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294491)

"... why should we wreck our economy over something that not everyone can agree on..."

Who says it would wreck the economy? Automakers cried wolf in the same fashion in the 70's and 80's when rasied MPG requirements and imposed the environmental standards that required catalytic converters and cleaner fuels. "Oh," said they, "it will cause the collapse of the industry as we know it and cause irreparable harm to the US economy."

Didn't happen.

At worst cleaning up our act and imposing higher CAFE standards "might" impact corporate profits for a quarter or two. But in return we get a cleaner environment, less polution, and less dependence on foreign oil imports. Not to mention spawning new industries to provide those solutions and technologies.

And that's a bad thing... how?

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy Must Deal Tough with America (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294379)

Pennsylvania isn't particularly deep in the South. Yahoos enjoy significant populations just about everywhere you go.

Re:sanctions are inevitable (1)

chriss (26574) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294247)

surely its only a matter of time before europe imposes trade tarrifs on US goods?

It's not that simple. One of the reasons for the G8 meeting is to discuss rules of engagement. If you subsidize an industry in your country, due to the rules of the WTO other countries are ALLOWED to impose trade tariffs. But so far, ignoring e.g. climate change or human rights is not something that is considered a deal breaker since there is no deal about those things. So one of the goals of the Europeans is to establish rules, so that there may be legal sanctions in the future.

The US government is trying to prevent the establishment of these rules. That does not necessarily mean that they intend to (continue to) not engage in reducing e.g. carbon emissions, but even if they promise to match the European carbon reduction goals, there won't be any way to force them to do so if they fail. They refuse to become liable.

The largest part of trade in the EU is trade between countries in the EU, currently 25 with about 450 million "consumer". Beyond that the US makes up a large part, though not enough to ruin the EU. But nobody will risk a full scale trade war, neither the Europeans nor the US, it's ways to expensive.

It's more likely that the Europeans will establish rules for products imported. They love rules, and some of them are quite good, e.g. any electric product has to comply to a number of security rules and have an CE label, due to which appliances in Europe are extremely save. They are already enforcing limits on energy consumption and use of hazardous materials, they could also limit the energy allowed to create a product. This would force producers world wide to adapt more environmental friendly ways to create products, if they still want to sell to the European market. Usually these producers will not create two separate products lines, one environmental friendly for the EU and one less friendly for e.g. the US. Raising the bar for Europe will automatically raise the bar worldwide, thus spreading those "advanced" products even beyond the EU without requiring international rules or a trade war.

Disclaimer: I'm German and this is one of very few times the German government has my full support.

Re:sanctions are inevitable (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294501)

Global warming is basically a political ploy aimed at the US anyway so ignoring China's pollution and attempting to circle the wagons against US would be expected. It's a no win for US. They can give in to irational demands or suffer irrational criticisms. Even a co founder of Greenpeace said GW was political tool. It massive idocy not long to last because worse things are going to happen while nitwits worry over natural things they can't control.

I happen to be German (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19293983)

you insensitive clod!

Goatse! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19293989)

Goatseeee! [goatse.cz]

Climate? What is that? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294001)

The treatment of climate change runs counter to our overall position and crosses 'multiple red lines' in terms of what we simply cannot agree to
No kidding. Like is there really a climate? I don't recall Jesus ever talking about a climate and I'm damn sure he never mentioned anything about it changing. Perhaps these other G8 nations need to worry a little more about their salvation than some hippie environmentalist cause that is only supported by scientists. Get the support of a couple of preachers and then I'll listen.

Re:Climate? What is that? (-1, Flamebait)

chaney (526944) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294205)

Good job bigot! Anyone who disagrees with you or the G8 is automatically an ignorant Christian. Oh, and NO Christian believes in science. On top of it, everything must be the Christians fault. We should kill them all... MAKE them meet there maker right? Hitler had the right idea, just the wrong people. You seriously need to grow up and educate your ignorant ass.

Kill all Christians? (1)

Sectrish (949413) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294391)

I'm pretty sure he meant the creationist types, who surely are still an (albeit influential) minority. For instance, I'm a christian, because my parents were and I'm not particulary attracted to atheïsm, as are many of my friends. As long as there is no scientifical evidence that something other than an inexplainable force was responsible for the creation of our universe, I'll stick where I am. (I don't live in the US though, more like the other side of the pond, and then just a tad further)

Re:Kill all Christians? (1)

chaney (526944) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294465)

I probably was a bit over the top with my last comment, but the point still stands. I am a Christian as well (if you had not guessed already) And I don't see the conflict with creationism and the big bang/evolution. It seems to me that it's only the atheists that say that it's only one or the other. They cant creationism be the why, and the big bang and evolution be the how? That is what me and EVERY OTHER Christian I know thinks. Only my grand parents and their generation think different. Oh, and I like how I get a troll moderation and the other guy gets insightful. Just goes to show that bigots tend to group together like nazi's or the kkk. Uhg... I need to stop posting, these intolerant morons are driving me crazy. Oh... and even though Jesus didn't talk about computers... I still am an IT Specialist for the Navy. (Civilian, not enlisted)

I heart Dinosaurs (5, Funny)

letchhausen (95030) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294007)

The overall position of the US at this time is that people and dinosaurs lived together in harmony and that soon George the idiot and all his money-grubbing pals will fly into the sky up to heaven. Global warming and the changing environment is a problem for those of us LEFT BEHIND to deal with. So as dubya says "What me worry?"

Re:I heart Dinosaurs (5, Interesting)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294077)

Parent is not a troll. It's an informative [tomdispatch.com] post.

There's not much political benefit to environmental stewardship when a considerable majority [cbsnews.com] of your supporters have no interest in empirical truth. Most Bush voters believe exactly what parent said: Jesus will come again and they will be swept into heaven before the environmental consequences of their actions cause them any harm.

Re:I heart Dinosaurs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294115)

Jesus will come again and they will be swept into heaven before the environmental consequences of their actions cause them any harm
"Swept into heaven," ah, so that's why there's more hurricanes.

God (4, Interesting)

southern yank (1092881) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294213)

That's exactly right. I read a Gore Vidal essay explaining how Regan was absolutely convinced that the biblical end of times would be within his lifetime. It's scary to think how such beliefs influence national policy. Vidal also proposed that no president should be elected who holds a literal view of the bible. I wonder how much the Christian Right influences Bush's environmental policy.

Why bother looking out for future generations if the leader of the free world believes we'll all be getting beamed up in a few years?

Re:I heart Dinosaurs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294365)

Global warming is natural. Only psychotics believe otherwise.

The 'Fundamental' concern... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294035)

A large population of our country is simply unable to comprehend american life without their SUVs/cheap gas/walmart lifestyles.

Re:The 'Fundamental' concern... (1, Insightful)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294111)

It's not even that. They're either nakedly afraid of change or don't think it's worth the cost because they're going to heaven anyway.

If political will existed we could have vehicles that do everything SUVs do now, and houses just as big and comfy as the ones we have now, that had only a small fraction of the environmental impact. The technology is there; it's just a question of making it economically feasible.

The whole point of government is to address situations where market outcomes are bad for society. A government truly concerned with the interests of its citizens would have found a way to make clean houses and cars economically viable three decades ago.

Re:The 'Fundamental' concern... (1, Troll)

j. andrew rogers (774820) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294237)

"If political will existed we could have vehicles that do everything SUVs do now, and houses just as big and comfy as the ones we have now, that had only a small fraction of the environmental impact. The technology is there; it's just a question of making it economically feasible."

Considering that the environmental impact of SUVs versus, say, a Prius is negligible in the big environmental calculus, I would say that it is an entirely unimportant point. On the list of things that will have the most impact on the environment that is way, way down the list in both terms of impact and return on investment as far as the environment goes.

People routinely conflate oil trade issues with environmental issues -- they are not the same. Eliminating all SUVs tomorrow will have a negligible impact on CO2 production or most other environmental issues people seem to care about. Eliminating SUVs tomorrow would impact the geopolitics of the oil trade, but that has very little to do with environmental impact. A lot of people get hot and bothered about SUVs, but they are pretty much inconsequential in terms of the environment if you look at actual relative impact numbers. If environmental results are all we are looking for, spending energy on SUVs offers an incredibly low return on investment.

Re:The 'Fundamental' concern... (2, Informative)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294307)

On the list of things that will have the most impact on the environment that is way, way down the list in both terms of impact and return on investment as far as the environment goes.

I'm afraid you're flat wrong here.

The transportation and residential sectors combined make up more than half [doe.gov] of our greenhouse gas emissions. I'm not talking about the switch from a Tahoe to a Prius, but from a Tahoe to something like a Chevy Volt (sized for real-world use, of course). Given most people's driving patterns, that could cut our CO2 emissions from transportation by more than half. Similarly, I'm thinking about houses that are grid-neutral most of the time (think solar roofs, on-site windmills, or whatever else can help power houses in x climate). These switches would have a *huge* impact on our CO2 emissions and none whatsoever on our lifestyle, if the policy framework were in place to support them.

Re:The 'Fundamental' concern... (0, Troll)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294323)

A lot of people get hot and bothered about SUVs, but they are pretty much inconsequential in terms of the environment if you look at actual relative impact numbers. If environmental results are all we are looking for, spending energy on SUVs offers an incredibly low return on investment.

But if hating America and hating big oil and hate in general are your thing, you can't beat SUVs for their buzzword power.

Who is "afraid of change"? (1)

John Jorsett (171560) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294389)

It's not even that. They're either nakedly afraid of change or don't think it's worth the cost because they're going to heaven anyway.

Seems to me that the people afraid of change are the environmentalists. For evolution to take place, species have to be stressed, and climate change is (and historically has been) one of the major stressors. Based on what's been coming from the environmental camp, I gather that no climate change is acceptable, and neither are species extinctions. I can only infer that they believe that the environment should be in stasis from now until the end of time, although I suspect that if the human race were to die off, that would be an exception they'd be willing to make.

Re:The 'Fundamental' concern... (0, Flamebait)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294161)

A large population of our country is simply unable to comprehend american life without their SUVs/cheap gas/walmart lifestyles.

Actually, they remember being worse off before they bought their SUV and before they could buy their stuff at Walmart. Their comprehension of American life is, in fact, the key thing that keeps it the way it is.

What they don't "comprehend" is why you and other folks like you hate/dislike/look down on/disparage their lives and their choices. I'm pretty sure I "comprehend" it though.

Re:The 'Fundamental' concern... (1)

linguizic (806996) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294217)

That's why we need to be putting great amounts of resources into finding alternative energy sources. It doesn't look like it's going to ethanol, who knows maybe fuel cells. It's ludicrous to ask people to just freely give up their way of life. People go to war to preserve their way of life. Besides, I think most Americans do want something done about climate change. We need to demand from our politicians that they start a new project on this matter akin to the Manhattan project.

It'll work out - sort of.... (1)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294287)

A large population of our country is simply unable to comprehend american life without their SUVs/cheap gas/walmart lifestyles.

I recently got a Costco membership and one of the things that they sell a little cheaper (less than $0.10 a gallon) than your corner gas station is gas. There's always a huge line at the gas pumps and for me, with my 4 cylinder, $0.10 a gallon isn't worth waiting 20 minutes. But, you guessed it, most of the line is SUVs, pickup trucks, and large cars. (The Mercedes folks got me scratching my head. I guess they're in hock up the ass to buy their car so they have to scrimp everywhere else.)

Anyway, as China and the rest of the world's industry expands, oil will greatly increase in price, and we Americans will finally be driving smaller cars. It will happen. Unfortunately, our pollution decreases will be matched maybe overshadowed by increases in those countries I've mentioned.

responsability (5, Insightful)

bedonnant (958404) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294037)

this news is sadly unsurprising.
when will the US finally step up and take something other than short-term, economic driven decisions concerning the environment?

Investigation at DOI (5, Informative)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294099)

Here's a related bit of news that may make you feel better.

An investigation at the Department of the Interior (Manages US wildlands) has resulted in numerous resignations and may result in real domestic reform.

Accusations from leading scientists include:
Elimination of data regarding imperiled species in resource rich areas
Rubber stamping of logging permits on public lands without due process
Improper contact between dept administrators and corporate interests including the allowance of corporate influence on impact assessments

All of the allegations center around administrators who were placed by the Bush administration. Several highly placed scientists have left for the private sector and there may be an expose published. The elimination of data was egregious. Apparently data was not only removed from official reports, but other data was *actually* changed and whistleblowers were railroaded out.

Bet you five bucks this becomes a campaign issue if Gore decides to run.

Re:Investigation at DOI (1)

NilesDonegan (136760) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294361)

My worry is that the people who replaced those who resigned care more about the Administration's talking points and less about the science. If these newly-hired partisans are career hires instead of political apointees, the true danger will last long after Bush is gone from office, as they'll be a sleeper-cell for the next administration, if Democratic.

Re:responsability (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294267)

when will the US finally step up and take something other than short-term, economic driven decisions concerning the environment?

When the longer term analysis starts being more focused on reality rather than doomsday scenarios and the promotion of socialism and disparagement of America.

Re:responsability (1)

StarfishOne (756076) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294433)

On the other hand: does it matter if in the long term the doomsday scenario results in 5C* or 6.2C* temperature rise? or in 'doomsday'* or 'doomsday ^ 2'* ?

It's safe to assume that in the long run something is going to happen.

Taking action at a later time might be:

a) impossible; certain thresholds have been overstepped and there's no recovery possible for centuries*
b) far more costly than starting to take action right now

It's unrealistic to think that the world, or even the Western world alone, can switch to a far more eco-friendly society in a single year.

But to quote the famous saying: 'even the longest road starts with a single step'.

It might and will take time to switch, but an economy can also profit on producing products that are far more eco-friendly. Think interesting research and new developments, think 'buy this product now, it uses less energy, is cheaper to use/maintain/recycle/etc.

At least at this moment we still have some time available.

* The numbers and examples are made up for the general argument which is not about the 0.1 centigrade detailed climate-warming discussion thingy. :)

Re:responsability (1)

Karganeth (1017580) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294311)

I think it's not about the stopping environment change. I think what needs to be done is PREPARE for environment change. We can't control the environment - no matter how hard we try. The environment has always been changing. It's silly to think that we can control the Earth's climate...

Re:responsability (3, Insightful)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294363)

when will the US finally step up and take something other than short-term, economic driven decisions concerning the environment?

When will Europe finally step up and admit they have failed badly [washingtonpost.com] WRT the Kyoto Protocol? (some countries have done great. But nowhere all or enough)
When will the world step up and bring China and India into the emission reduction mindset?
When will the rest of the world finally admit that the US is making significant efforts in emissions reductions, just not within the exact same rules as you'd like? (Individual states, and even Bush's latest proposal)
When will the rest of the world realize that 'carbon credit trading' is nothing more than money transfer/extortion, not anything to do with actual carbon emission reduction. As evidenced by none other than Al Gore [alternet.org] .

Does the US need to do more to reduce its (carbon) emissions? Hell yes. But so does everyone else.
Make it simple. Everyone...reduce your individual countries emissions by x% in y years. No breaks, no 'trading', no excuses. X%.

Any treaty that affects all the planet, yet exempts almost 1/2 the planet, is badly flawed from the start.

Hope for the future (1, Funny)

BoxRec (532280) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294043)

There is yet hope, a combined European / Asian military force could liberate the US from it's fanatical leader and restore democracy.

Re:Hope for the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294131)

restore democracy? it is the usa, a republic, not a democracy

Re:Hope for the future (3, Informative)

julesh (229690) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294243)

it is the usa, a republic, not a democracy

Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Republic: a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

(source for both defs, dictionary.com)

The difference is what, precisely? Other than that "republic" is a more precise term than "democracy" which is somewhat vague about the exact mechanism, nothing relevant.

Re:Hope for the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294369)

Democracy is a form of government, like communism or monarchy.
A Republic is a type of state, like a kingdom or an emirate.

Re:Hope for the future (0, Troll)

perlchild (582235) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294209)

If the americans, who have been ridiculed for their leader by other countries ever since he took power, refuse to act, perhaps the other nations will just let them suffer. We may be bound to save ourselves, but after the Americans realized how bad he was, they didn't even protest, why are we bound to save them even the trouble of protesting?

Re:Hope for the future (1)

HeLLFiRe1151 (743468) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294437)

I wish Americans would have said that about Europe for the past 200 years.

yes (3, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294053)

surely its only a matter of time before europe imposes trade tarrifs on US goods?

the world is more like a single civilization these days, any sanctions brought by europe would have far reaching consequences for the world economy. while I do think that the only way to get the top C02 producers' attention is to hit their wallet, I dont think sanctions are it. mainly because sanctions interrupt the global economy not just america's. but hey if there is a way, I hope they do it- I am sick of politicians and industry putting their own monetary goals ahead of life on Earth- something must be done.

So whats New? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294055)

Big surprise here....Capitalism and money get in the way of the environment news at 11. Really here whats new? The USA has always balked at environmental measures that would mean its big industry's would have to clean up there act. Just look at the steel mills that pollute the greatlakes as one example.
You have to remember the USA is a republic, that acts like a democracy, that is controlled by Capitalism! and anything that hurts the allmighty rich is criminal. Or a act of terrorism.

Surprising no-one, of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294059)

Hopefully, there's been enough of this sort of political idiocy to get the American public - who appear [pollingreport.com] to view this as an important issue - to demand candidates who are committed to actual regulatory action instead of empty promises of voluntary reduction.

I don't think I'll hold my breath, however, since the next election will paid for by the same industries who write our environmental policy.

Did Blair finally get it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294063)

Greenpeace, who leaked the document, said it showed UK PM Tony Blair failed to persuade the US to alter its stance."


6 years of loyal poodlism has not paid off, nor will it ever pay off. I hope Gordon Brown is smarter than his boss...

Hey Europe... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294093)

Big apologies for this- all of our regnegging on agreements and such. PLEASE give us two years to fix this shit. K? Thx!! BFF

Error... (4, Informative)

derEikopf (624124) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294097)

The US still has serious, fundamental concerns about this draft statement.

Correction: The US Government.

Re:Error... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294199)

Correction, The USA is a democracy, ruled by the people. So the US goverment is the US and represents the US's views.

Re:Error... (4, Insightful)

nova_ostrich (774466) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294339)

It's a republic, actually. Ruled by elected representatives of the people. Democracy is just the word those representatives use to make the people of the US feel warm and fuzzy.

Personally, I've rarely encountered a candidate for major public office that represents my views. I believe that there's a decent-sized minority similar to myself that simply can't quite overpower (in votes) the majority that focuses on whatever the two major candidates have decided are important issues today.

Re:Error... (2, Insightful)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294439)

"that simply can't quite overpower (in votes) the majority that focuses on whatever the two major candidates have decided are important issues today"

Or the even larger majority who are basically conned into voting for whichever party based on misleading and one-sided campaign publicity (TV & radio adverts, billboards etc.).

It's funny how in almost all US elections for the past couple of decades, it is the party with the most campaign money behind it that gets into power.

Re:Error... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294405)

Correction: The US Government.
Correction: The US Government which is full of ignorant hicks.

Surely its only a matter of time before europe imposes trade tarrifs on US goods?
The faster the better. IMHO the EU has made some tough decisions in effort to slow down global warming. FFS, these trade tarrifs would be only deserved.

And then the people in the USA... (0, Troll)

fluch (126140) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294103)

...are surprised that sympathy towards USA is keeping within limits for the destruction caused by the horrible hurricanes. (Of course the people who suffer from it are not the ones who made the decisions and such disasters are horrible.)

Re:And then the people in the USA... (0, Offtopic)

chriss (26574) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294485)

...are surprised that sympathy towards USA is keeping within limits for the destruction caused by the horrible hurricanes.

The world is smarter than this. There was a tremendous international response and offer to help after Katrina [wikipedia.org] . The negative reaction the US is confronted with today is a result of the danger the US governments current politics put the world into due to overestimating their power and underestimating the importance of diplomacy and agreement. It's not a lack of sympathy for the US people.

haiku (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294113)

Washington DC
Climate Change denial ends
under rising sea.

Bad USA! Bad! (1)

moranar (632206) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294127)

Has anyone got a continent-sized roll of newspaper? This puppy needs punishment, it shat on the carpet again.

I so wish this could be done, and that it was useful in any way...

Re:Bad USA! Bad! (1)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294467)

I think a Washington D.C.-sized newspaper would be more feasible and appropriate.

If they were serious about reducing CO2... (0, Flamebait)

Just Another Poster (894286) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294155)

...they would fertilize the oceans and switch to nuclear power.

Instead, they concentrate on smashing the US economy, which is where their true priorities lie.

Re:If they were serious about reducing CO2... (0)

beh (4759) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294279)

I don't think there is a priority of 'smashing' the US economy; but it might be the end result, if the US try and stay out of it for too long - if the US doesn't care about the environment now, and climatologists will turn out to be right about the changes; then the US economy will have to play a huge game of catch-up with other economies which, by then, will have a big head-start on those issues (and probably be able to make a killing selling the necessary technology to the US...

What I do see, though, is that there are the usual inflammatory comments how the rest of the world is misguided...

The US, right now, is the biggest CO2 emitter among the industrialised nations (even 'per capita'; so it's not just that the US is the biggest one, just because it has a bigger population that Germany, France and the UK combined).

If the US do NOT join efforts to fight climate change, that is one thing - but there is the secondary problem that as long as the biggest polluter doesn't do anything about it, where's the incentive for the fast growing economies in China and India to do anything about it? (And - because those are relatively 'poor', their new manufacturing plants are even more polluting, than their US counterparts). As such, it might turn out, that if the US doesn't slowly begin to take action, that any reduction by the other western industrial nations is negated simply by growth from countries like China and India.

Dear rest of the world, (5, Insightful)

Flying pig (925874) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294201)

We're really sorry about the climate change thing. Still, we never did want to go to Bangladesh and, let's face it, that big lagoon where London used to be is quite attractive.

We don't suppose you can spare some rice and some oil, by any chance? Only the desert now stretches from the West Coast to Chicago and we have a bit of a food problem. And the Canadians have built a big fence along the border and won't let us in as none of us want to mow their lawns or harvest their oranges.

We can offer plenty of stuff in exchange. How about some strategic nuclear missiles? Or some fighter aircraft? We've got plenty of them. Unfortunately, turns out they don't work too well if you want to invade another country and make people grow food for you.

unfair standards (2, Insightful)

oconnorcjo (242077) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294215)

i remember the last g8 thing demanded major reform from usa while ignoring third world countries. if this is still the case, i could understand not wanting anything to do with it.

What about China and India? (1, Insightful)

Game_Ender (815505) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294227)

People are talking about Europe being upset at the US because they have it easier but what about China and India? Both countries are growing up fast and China is especially lose about its restrictions. How would you as the US feel if were asked by a region which is economically inferior to yours to hamper your economy, but yet they ignore your strongest competitor. From a pure monetary standpoint that doesn't make much sense if you want stay successful as a country.

Re:What about China and India? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294299)

How would you as the US feel if were asked by a region which is economically inferior to yours to hamper your economy, but yet they ignore your strongest competitor.

I would feel quite a bit like telling them to go fuck themselves instead of blaming my strongest competitor for not choosing to be likewise hampered.

Re:What about China and India? (-1, Troll)

mjpaci (33725) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294357)

Mr Game Ender:

Stop right now. You are coming close to exposing the European Double Standard. Besides, the Europeans need the US to beat-up on so their own people don't realize how economically incompetent their own leaders are. Let the US be the great satan -- we've been it for so long it's kind of fun. The Euros will be begging for our assistance once they are part of the great caliphate.

--Mike

Re:What about China and India? (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294393)

You don't understand what they're saying. They're bashing the US and they blame the US for everything that goes wrong. What do China and India have to do with that?

Get the religious people on side? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294245)

I know people here don't like to talk about the religious groups that seem to be in charge, or at least very influential, of the current administration.
But maybe it's time to get the "What would Jesus driver?" group to get onside and help out the Climate Crisis campaign. These religious groups make the point that we are the caretakers and should be looking after the planet. Obviously, this goes against the grain in the US.
Maybe it'll take a few more hurricanes for the message to sink in, or a mini ice age or some more huge heatwaves ?

The timing is good though because oil is running out, that way both issues can be tackled together otherwise the US would just ignore it.

What is being asked. (0)

nuggz (69912) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294259)

From the summary no country can accept all the targets that are being proposed. Real leadership is saying "this agreement is BS and impossible to commit to".

The problem with the environmental lobby is their insistance at demonizing their opponents in the media rather than take a constructive attitude about how to include the major polluters.

Not just about the climate. (5, Insightful)

Fuzzums (250400) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294261)

The thing is not inly if "greenhouse gasses" affect the climate. It's also about outrageous and irresponsible use of resources. It's about pollution.

You don't pollute your own house, so stop polluting this world.
Although I don't live in your house and couldn't care less about what you do there, I and about 6 billion people live in this world so let's keep it clean.

Twenty months to go... (2, Funny)

imagerodeo (643430) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294295)

Twenty months to go, twenty months to go
Hi-ho the dairy oh, twenty months to go

I'm new here so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19294345)

I'm new here so let me just say

US bad, Europe good.
Windows bad, Linux good.
Metric system rules!

Ham radio good!

We don't need stinking G8, let'em die! What if ... (1, Flamebait)

OldHawk777 (19923) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294349)

Global population is the cause of global warming and the looting of expensive and needed natural resources. There is just far to many poor, destitute, criminal, insane, illiterate, retarded primitives wastefully absorbing vital resources needed for the future of the more valuable members of our "New World Order."

EU, US, and a few others will need far more lebensraum in the future for our posterity.

Global environment conditions are problems for the more primitive humans with marginal or failing living conditions.

Global warming will provide a far more humane method of extermination for the burdensome marginal cultural groups globally (including the US, EU, China ...). Global warming will conserve valuable natural resources, drastically reduce the global population problem that is acceleratingly global warming.

This is just Gods' spiritual and Mother Nature's natural way of putting everything back in balance for the chosen among the world population. Eventually we will not need to expand prisons into concentration camps, cause pestilence, famine, diseases, or start wars to control populations at the lower economic levels.

In the near future, robot technology will give us a cheaper and better living standards, and require little or no exploitable labor pool, which will allow US, EU, and others to reduce the global population further, and eventually (after population decimation) there will be an environmental turn around that saves the world for the irreplaceable members of the US, EU, and a few other important people.

Think of it a wonderful world with a great environment, no welfare or food stamps for the poor, social security payments and medical expenses for the elderly a thing of the past, and human populations so damn low that lebensraum will be cheap for everyone to develop as they deem best without any further government restrictions.

WHAT DO YOU WANT IN YOUR FUTURE? ENDIT/BEIT, US dogmatist, plutocrats, corporatist, and religious leaders have spoken/answered for all! So, find another way ... means take drastic manage measures and permanently fix the problem. Environmental Polution problems are far to expensive to ever be acceptable, and population reduction by sterilization does not eliminate the cause of the problems, population decimation is the only affordable and practical method under totalitarian corporatism and/or religious (Christian, Islam, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu...) ethics.

REMEMBER: Patriotism and Religion can serve the few or the many; Also, Patriotism and Religion will never get you through times of no honor, food, family, friends, and education.

!HAVEFUN! It is all about Reality-Spin, I wounder what will happen [NOT!]?

Not surprising.... (1)

chmod a+x mojo (965286) | more than 7 years ago | (#19294397)

Now if only there was a way to show how caring about the climate would MAKE money... what you mean it can? Hmmm 25 years down the road we wouldn't have the problems that are looming now? BAH Corporate america would rather spend $2 less per year and just cover up anything they can, after all it will save 2 WHOLE dollars, not to mention the instant gratification factors. Many of us americans want instant gratifications and to hell with waiting or what anyone else wants. Yeah not the greatest view, but hey, we can all just go out and vote to change that right??? Nope sorry, the electoral college holds the reigns and it doesn't matter what the majority wants.

Personally I would love to see the U.S. embrace something like this, or at least make a pledge to LESSEN the greenhouse emissions, then STICK TO IT. Yes it might make my life a little more difficult in the short run, but will make my later life easier as well as my childrens life ( if i decide to have any that is). And no, this is not a bleeding heart " think of the children" outlook, anyone who is not concerned with their descendants well being needs to rethink their position a little bit i think ( like most of corporate america where money is everything and to hell with everything not a profit) Personally i try to buy from "greener" companies if possible, but this is not always possible. The best way to pressure companies into being cleaner / greener would be everyone who does agree to the G8 aggreement to buy from the greenest companies as possible, that is the only way to hurt the dirtier companies... through the profit margin...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>