PDA

View Full Version : A National Disgrace



Artis
02-18-2005, 03:02 PM
i hear all too often on these forums that our country is great and that this is how things are and that is ok. well i, like the author of this article, think that is total crap. at no point in our history have we shied away from challenging tasks. i trumpet the causes of better education and national health care and lies and deceit in the bush administration and palli talks about our electorate that does nothing but line their own pockets and pat each other on the back. well we can do better. this article is ostensibly about the bush administration's rejection of the kyoto protocol way back in march of 2001. i post the article here because the kyoto protocol has just taken effect....for those countries that did sign on to it unlike the u.s. and because i think this author really captured the essence of what it is to be american. our view has become all convoluted now. we lead in unworthy or false causes and ask for help in some areas and in others we take the responsibility solely upon our shoulders and tell other countries that we dont want their help even after they offer it such as the war in afghanistan. anyway, here is the article. it isnt that long so please read it. and if you dont like to read things about bush just skip the small parts about how bush really fucked up on this one and read the part about what being an american means.


A national disgrace

President Bush's decision to pull the U.S. out of the Kyoto Protocol insults our history, our spirit and our greatness.

By Kevin J. Sweeney
- - - - - - - - - -

March 29, 2001 | There are many reasons to criticize President Bush's recent move to withdraw the United States from negotiations surrounding the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. The world's most powerful leader is deliberately avoiding one of the most significant issues facing the world. He is jeopardizing U.S. credibility and standing in the global community. He is threatening to keep the U.S. economy behind a trend toward energy efficiency that the rest of the developed world has clearly embraced.

But there is another reason, one that is of concern to every American, regardless of political affiliation.

George W. Bush's statements on climate change are fundamentally unpatriotic.

In a letter to four U.S. senators, Bush said he won't support the Kyoto Protocol because it does not yet command participation from developing nations, including China and India. He says their absence makes the approach "unfair." He is saying, quite concretely, that the U.S. won't participate unless everyone else does. He is saying, quite directly, that we, the United States, would prefer not to lead on this issue.

It's a position -- an excuse, really -- that would be plausible coming from Lesotho, Paraguay or the Czech Republic. But not from the United States.

I respect all nations and all peoples, but I love my country. Like many, I happen to believe I was born in, and live in, a genuinely great country. This is no empty pledge of allegiance; my sense of patriotism requires one to be specific about those national characteristics that one loves. (It is a process that allows for many forms of greatness; it recognizes that all countries can be great in their own way.) One of the things I love most about my country and the people who live here is that we're able to tackle the most immense problems and challenges -- and solve them. This is our history, our deserved claim to fame. Our legacy of originality, creativity and ingenuity has its roots in our nation's very beginning. We toppled a monarchy and tried out a new experiment in democracy. We created the process of mass production to bring highly technical products to vast numbers of people. We built an arsenal to defend freedom on several continents at once, and did it overnight. Want to go to the moon? Get Uncle Sam on the line.

As the world's only remaining superpower, our unique burden and enormous distinction has been that we must lead the way on the world's most critical issues, its most intractable problems. It is our huge responsibility. But it is also our particular joy. We're Americans. Give us a few minutes under the hood; we'll get this baby going.

In a 1962 speech in Bush's home state of Texas, John F. Kennedy identified a great challenge and magically captured this American spirit. "Why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, did Lindbergh fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon, and do the other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard."

So it once was. Suddenly, it's different. President Bush would have us slouch to the end of the line, step to the periphery as hapless bystanders. He would have us defer, regardless of our history, regardless of the certain peril in such deference. Now, as China goes, so goes the U.S. (That's right, we'll only sign on to the global compact on greenhouse gas emissions if it is first signed by the Communist regime in China -- Red China, as they presumably say at the Bush dinner table.) We will wait, blushing and shuffling our feet, for some energetic leader of another country to take the initiative, to drag us along for our own good.

Kennedy knew what the rest of us know: A strong country is not afraid of high standards. In fact, a strong country tries to set the highest standards possible, knowing that it, as much as any other nation, possesses the skills and energy to meet those standards. That was the America in which I was born. George W. Bush's statements notwithstanding, it is the America in which I live.

The United States should be doing all it can to support the ratcheting up of standards on the emissions of greenhouse gases. It is a challenge worthy of the American spirit. And it is an effort that would bring tremendous economic benefits to the American people.

Bush's limited view allows him to see the costs -- his letter to the senators claimed Kyoto would harm the U.S. economy -- but prevents him from seeing the economic benefits of leading the way. U.S. investments in the war effort of the 1940s gave our automotive and aeronautics industries competitive advantages that lasted more than three decades. Kennedy's commitment to the Apollo program (he did not spend his limited time in office trying to line up support from developing nations) led to our economic dominance of the information age.

The same can be true when the new energy age rolls around -- as it surely will in the coming decade. If we commit to dramatic reductions in our carbon emissions, we'll spend much of the decade developing new and efficient energy systems and appliances. And the world will buy them. People in China and India will buy them as well -- even if their countries haven't yet signed on -- because they will be the best and most cost-efficient systems.

Bush's decisions, if unchecked, could have a disastrous impact on the American spirit. His path would have us suddenly afraid of our strength. It would have us recoiling from a responsibility we have earned and cherished. It would have us relinquishing a leading role in the preservation of the planet.

This isn't just the latest nail that Bush is pounding into the coffin of a beleaguered environment. It isn't just one in a litany of ecological horrors his administration has unleashed in a scant two months. This move is national capitulation. Bush is handing off the torch, declaring himself -- declaring us -- to be unworthy of leadership.

Among the many American things that I love and that are a source of great pride, two come to mind at this moment. There is the wondrous and diverse natural beauty of the American landscape. And there is our vital role as a leader on the global stage. With his decision on Kyoto, Bush has trashed both in one fell swoop.

About the writer
Kevin J. Sweeney, an environmental consultant in Piedmont, Calif., served as press secretary to former Sen. Gary Hart.

krazymop
02-18-2005, 03:40 PM
I agree with you on this one artis. Bush failed us miserably with the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. It's one of those "can't see the forest from the trees" issues. Unfortunately, our unrepentant materialism causes us to value objects over people.

Sasha
02-18-2005, 03:54 PM
I read bits and pieces and I completely agree with you Artis. It just seems to me that leading the world in energy efficent measures would require switching to more efficent energy sources rather than oil? hrm. Am I wrong? and even though you hate G.W. I can't concieve that another president would of done anything different. They are protecting their own so to speak. Their own wealth and influence and that of their billion dollar friends.

Artis
02-18-2005, 04:54 PM
agreed krazy.

and sash, either way it sucks regardless of who is president.

the part about what america is about really struck me as dead on. we are lacking in really an astounding number of areas INCLUDING environmental regulation whereas it has been the american way of life to do the hard things and to take on the unsolveable problems. this guy makes a good point in that those countries that develop alternative energy resources are going to make a killing when they sell those technologies to countries like the u.s. who was a late adopter. we will have to change eventually and i think everyone knows that. we are just prolonging the inevitable.

StAnkY
02-18-2005, 09:09 PM
well this guy sure paints himself as idealistic and a big thinker. perhaps if he could tell bush how to convince the manufacturing industry that would be up against a wall worse than they already are NOT to move their operations to mexico or outsource it to a cheap labor source overseas. oh wait..im sure these dudes that have spent 10-20 years in unskilled labor positions could become scientists and get paid to develop these alternative fuel sources or even develop clean air stacks that dont cost as much as the net worth of some of the businesses that wouldnt be in compliance. i think this guy is a dick myself. he makes it sound as easy as a pen swipe and theres alot of things that factor into this. no president could ink that treaty in the shape we are in right now. im not even attempting to defend the asshole im just stating the obvious that this "passionate" writer is omitting

Artis
02-20-2005, 08:13 PM
stanky, the point is that we are shying away from this when we shouldnt. he says it wont be easy and it wouldnt but in all honesty, that is beside the fucking point. also, while i blame the bush administration for not being a part of kyoto, i also see your point about the manufacturing industry and the influence they have in washington, etc. i also sympathize with the working class people who would get fucked over. nonetheless, we need to step up on the environment.

StAnkY
02-20-2005, 11:07 PM
yes we do need to step up on the environment. my point is this isnt a "bush thing" wether or not the treaty was signed. no president could do it for us right now because there is no plan for the countless people who would be unemployed. the rich would only get richer so i dont buy into the payoff thing entirely. they can outsource and go cheaper than they are now on most things. im just saying you dont want to make it too easy of a choice for them. id say do the same with environmental compliance as they do property taxes. some kind of abatement/credit to make it attractive to do the right thing instead of looking for the cheapest way of doing things. see when clinton was in office he wanted to effectively shut down the coal mining industry. while its a good idea from an environmental standpoint he couldnt even get alot of his own party to back him up on it because of the ramifications it would have on entire communities. before we kill off an industry we need to have a plan a, b and c to make sure we arent making things worse than they are. im sure cleaner air isnt going to mean shit to the guy who has his family living in his car

Artis
02-21-2005, 08:13 AM
yes stanky we need a plan and we have had decades to come up with one. its about fucking time we do it is what im saying.

StAnkY
02-21-2005, 08:47 AM
so true. the major hurdle is they, meaning ANY of them in washington have no plan (not realistic ones that could ever get approved). no course of action, no thought of how other things are affected both good and bad by doing the right thing. one side has corporate america sayin leave it alone, the other side has organized labor sayin the same thing pretty much. trust me it bothers me too artis. not so much for myself but ive got my own flesh and blood that will be living in this world. an idea once mentioned then it kind of vanished was making a graduated system of compliance so that it didnt have an adverse affect on the companies or their labor force. to me it seemed to make perfect sense. you have to clean up "this much by this date". if you fell short a sobering fine would kick your ass. if you made it there were incentives to keep at it. actually i think the wheels fell off that idea during clintons last year in office. to me it seemed like the fairest and most realistic proposal that could be thought of but one side said it was too much and the other not enough. its kind of sad that the air we breath and the water we drink is subject to politics

krazymop
02-21-2005, 09:06 AM
The problem is corporations still won't go for a plan like that. They don't want to do ANYTHING that will cost them money, even if in the long term the benefits for them will outweight the costs. The problem is the vast majority of companies have to answer to one group: the shareholders. The shareholders want profit now. They don't care about profit 10 years from now. Therefore, it falls on government to regulate that which companies are unable to regulate themselves.

Artis
02-21-2005, 09:24 AM
yup stanky and krazy. shareholders suck. politicians suck. big business sucks. its ok though cause its the american way.