Yes, there has been some progress in the U.S. - but not as much as elsewhere. To give just an example, California car emission standards were once the toughest in the world - now they've been overtaken by those of many industrial nations. (Yes, I'm aware of the zero emissions act - but the sense of that, as opposed to requiring better gas mileage for all cars, is very arguable.) Or take solar & wind power: once pioneered in the U.S., you will find many more large-scale commercial projects today in Europe than in America. Environmental engineering is the fastest-growing sector of the German economy, and projected to become one of the largest ones within a couple of years. How does environmental engineering compare to oil, cars, chemicals, etc. in the U.S.?
I don't deny there's been progress everywhere, but you have to compare internationally to see what is possible. I've lived in England, California, Germany and Switzerland over the past decade... 10 years ago the general environmental situation in Europe was far worse than in the U.S. Today it is just the opposite (with the possible exception of the U.K.) This is obvious to anybody who is familiar with both continents.
You are proving my point that this climate meeting is not intended to solve any real problems. Indicating that someones eating habits have something to do with global warming is stretching it a bit.
Not at all. The global population of cattle is *far* higher than anything that would occur naturally, as a direct consequence of human eating habits. Just because the image of farting cows tickles your fancy (via its incompatibility with Victorian moral codes) doesn't mean that there's any less connection between eating steak and global warming as between driving a car and global warming.
If I had my way I don't think any one should eat fish or meat but I do not believe that I should dictate to anyone else what they should eat.
Note that I've deliberately pointed out ranching subsidies as a point to target, for precisely this reason. I totally agree with you here.
The best solution would be for undeveloped nations to develope environmentally sensitive solutions with the benefit of our technology but that does not seam to be happening.
No, and the reason it's not happening is that the developing nations have the audacity to want our financial help to make it happen. After all, the industrial nations have wrecked the global ecology in the process of getting where they are today, so now the developing nations are in effect asking "why should we be denied the same opportunity to get rich the quick & dirty way?"
Sadly, the U.S. does not seem to be willing to spend this kind of money even to clean up its *own* act, so your suggestion that it's up to the developing nations (whose emissions are miniscule by comparison) to act is rather off the mark.
- nic |
