Saturday, December 10, 2005
Kyoto BS by the Bush Admin
Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin
Author: Stephen Jay Gould
Ok... I've never really gotten angry at the Bush Administration yet. Its done some things I havent agreed with; but thats politics and I chose them over a touchy-feely liberal pussy from MA... most obvious choice to me at the time. You'll rarely, if ever, see me posting slobbery posts of religious or political dogma (if I can recognize it of course, and I encourage the reader to 'please do'), but this has got my temper going.
But this stuff that happened at the Kyoto meeting in Montreal today... its got me pretty damn angry. For those of you not in the know, the Kyoto Treaty is a worldwide standard drawn up by many countries to combat worldwide pollution and emissions. Many of the worlds largest polluters are/were on the group. Basically the protocal has a set standard that all nations agree to follow and reach by 2012. The standard being a limitation on emissions. I'm not familiar with the particulars or if any penalties are present for not meeting the goals.
But basically it encourages some kind of government investment in cleaning up; via technology and/or new laws about emission standards (from anything like automobiles to papermills). "...the 1997 treaty protocol that was initialed in the Japanese city of Kyoto and mandates cutbacks in 35 industrialized nations of emissions of carbon dioxide and five other gases by 2012."
Why am I pissed? In 2001, the Bush admin rejected the accord and wouldnt sign... basically walking out of the conference in effect. I didnt know that, since I wasnt into worldwide events much. But NOW the admin is claiming that meeting the proposed standards would damage our economy....
WTF?!? First off, if its done intelligently, it won't damage the damn economy, it would only improve it. It would force more government investment in the technology sector (what the Americans are best at!) for alternative fuels and other tech for reducing all sorts of emissions. There are tons of options already out there; they are small but many are proven ideas that work; they just need some sort of major investment.
Biodiesel being a HUGE idea, the research is already there and small refinery companies are already making it in small quantities. They put off nowhere NEAR the emissions of a standard diesel fuel, the emissions smell like popcorn (seriously!) and arent harmful, AND it works in nearly any diesel vehicle; provided a few small upgrades are done; like old fuel hoses replaced, etc (thats standard maintenance anyway).
I have really backed up the prez, the administration, etc in a lot of things that were questionable. I don't think our reasoning was perfect for going into Iraq, but I still believe in what we are doing over there. I don't agree with the way its being run; there's a lot of ideas I've had that are very simple, that they are evidently not doing. (think Lojack and people being kidnapped). But this has gotten me angry. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason for why they say no, unless we are so far above the standard that the investment would be too large. But in 35 industrialized nations? I bet one of them is possibly China or Brazil; both bigger polluters than we are!!! We could do it. The environmental change has to REALLY start at the government level... because the major polluters won't change from just the population wanting it; our cars are a good example-> we don't make them.
This is beginning to make me seriously question myself here. And I hate it.