Forget Pouring French Wine Into The Streets, Pour Diesel!
| By JonathanGarro - Feb 1st, 2007 at 12:56 pm EST |
French President Jacques Chirac ain't happy. No, the price of caviar and polo balls didn't go up. He just ticked off that the world's largest source of carbon emissions doesn't adhere to the Kyoto protocols. And he has a plan to make us pay.
President Chirac has said that he will push to create a European tariff on American goods imported to their continent until the US agrees to abide by the protocol.
In retrospect, I'm sure many voters are perplexed that George W. somehow managed to portray himself as the more environmentally-concerned candidate to voters in 2000. Al Franken's book Lies explained the irony behind Bush being considered a greener choice than Al Gore - who had risen to power due in large part to his support for environmental issues. Anyone who bought into that spin must wonder how they could have been so easily fooled.
Of the many environmental concerns that our country and planet face today, global warming is perhaps most worrisome to the scientific community. In spite of this, the Bush Administration's record with regard to global warming is less than stellar. Since coming into office, the administration has:
(Source of above information)
During his last State of the Union, the President said we need greater innovation towards alternative fuel sources. According to the ideology of less government intervention into free markets, this would mean that we have to wait for alternative energy to make money on its own. As governor, Bush once said:
Now if we could just find a leader who could do that.
In the meantime, show those frogs what we think of them trying to clean up the environment. Remember pouring French wine into the streets after they refused to support the Iraq war? Now go turn your car's engine on, turn on all your lights, and burn some tires in the backyard.
Jonathan is the editor of SkipperStyle.
President Chirac has said that he will push to create a European tariff on American goods imported to their continent until the US agrees to abide by the protocol.
In retrospect, I'm sure many voters are perplexed that George W. somehow managed to portray himself as the more environmentally-concerned candidate to voters in 2000. Al Franken's book Lies explained the irony behind Bush being considered a greener choice than Al Gore - who had risen to power due in large part to his support for environmental issues. Anyone who bought into that spin must wonder how they could have been so easily fooled.
Of the many environmental concerns that our country and planet face today, global warming is perhaps most worrisome to the scientific community. In spite of this, the Bush Administration's record with regard to global warming is less than stellar. Since coming into office, the administration has:
Ignored internationally recognized air pollution regulation laid out in the Kyoto protocol
Proposed weak fuel economy standards for gas guzzlers
Employed a former oil lobbyist as an energy consultant
Silenced scientists discussing connections between our changing weather and carbon emissions
Pushed for oil drilling in the Alaskan wilderness
Created a new air pollution policy which would exempt over 50,000 industrial sources from regulation
Handed out huge tax breaks to an industry which is turning record profits
Ignored need to increase diesel standards
(Source of above information)
During his last State of the Union, the President said we need greater innovation towards alternative fuel sources. According to the ideology of less government intervention into free markets, this would mean that we have to wait for alternative energy to make money on its own. As governor, Bush once said:
I know this, though, you can't sue your way to clean air and clean water. We can't have the lawyers try to sue our way. We've got to have a leader lead our way by using technologies that work, by saying to industry if you're polluting, we're not going to accept it anymore. But let's work together to achieve a standard.
Now if we could just find a leader who could do that.
In the meantime, show those frogs what we think of them trying to clean up the environment. Remember pouring French wine into the streets after they refused to support the Iraq war? Now go turn your car's engine on, turn on all your lights, and burn some tires in the backyard.
Jonathan is the editor of SkipperStyle.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
We should be holding out on this, because the pieces aren't in place for any sort of comprehensive, global arrangement yet. Any argument about "well, it's a start" is BS -- it creates a favorable situation for large developing nations, because we're in a framework where our hands are tied and they're not, and they will do everything in their power to keep it that way.
Signing any "it's a start" agreement will actually make it that much harder to negotiate a comprehensive agreement later on down the road.
Same thing when it comes to our involvement in the ICC, which even Clinton suggested was a treaty we shouldn't ratify.
Any "grand settlement" of these differences should never be about a single issue. France, at the very least, should be giving up all its farm subsidies at the same time. China and India should be bound by the framework in a meaningful way. And so on, and so forth.
Secondly, comparing Kyoto to the Int'l Criminal Court is ludacris. The ICC would rob countries of legal powers. Kyoto is a reasonable guideline for carbon control - something which everyone has incentive to control.