Morning Michael. Back from weekend.
Yes, we disagree on global warming. I think our disagreement isn't even based on the facts, as those facts we have in hand are remarkably hard to interpret well. I think a big difference is on our perspective, and I'll presume to summarize yours as i see it.
I hear you coming from a standpoint of: "Look how far we have come! We have done some really neat things, and we as a nation and society are providing a model for the emerging world. Give them time and economic self-determination, and they will duplicate our success story".
My perspective (part heartfelt, part my perverse tendency to advocate the devil) is to say "We have achieved prosperity, but we have not always been forthcoming about the environmental price. I see our industrial base as finally big enough that we can updset the entire planet if we're not careful. That upset may start so subtly that policymakers might miss or ignore comparatively easy decision points because they can reasonably declare that there's no obvious problem. Let's find the social will to squarely face unconventional and uncomfortable questions about how we should fill our new role as bringers of planetary change."
I see a moral dilemma here, a sense of entitlement by emerging economies vs. the sense that we're all breathing the same air. The West has grown rich on dirty, cheap pre-1960 technology. Now the West has the resources to make our heavy industry cleaner, using the capital of the industrial revolution, and with a nudge from the taxpayers has been moving in that direction. The younger nations, like Brazil, Kenya... China... are particularly dependent on heavy industry and natural resources (coal, lumber, nonferrous metals) to build their wealth base. We've learned by now that the cheap ways of doing this leave a global smudge. We've got our house&2 cars; can we deny the fellow in Ipanema or Nairobi the same because we've "used up" the environmental buffer? It's gonna be unfair one way or another.
Maybe this is why I think it's important for the USA to take the lead on the carbon issue. If (as?) more info comes to light that CO2 budgets are already tight as a drum (and this will be as hard as getting that Liggett dude to admit cigarettes aren't a respiratory nutrient) the USA should underwriye the installation of clean plants in the countries that need them most, in exchange for good stuff like long-term trade partnerships and open leases on land for military installations.
>>I think it's easy to judge negatively those that follow in our footsteps.
But does coming second or third entitle a nation to taking the same course? This is the tough question.
I hope I got to the center of your concise, well-considered post.
Alex |
