I Could Write About The Supreme Court...
But that bores the hell out of me, though I will agree that it is the most important branch of the government as far as social issues go (with the legislative controlling the economic aspects of your life, and the executive responsible for opening up a can of whoop-ass on some unsuspecting island nation). Rather, I'd like to write about George Bush being a dick. And not Dick.
The G-8 summit starts in Gleneagles, Scotland in a few days. The G-8 summit is where the 7 richest nations of the world (and Russia, because they have a lot of nukes) meet to discuss policy, such as, say, the Kyoto global warming Protocol. I bring that up because the two main topics at this G-8 meeting are African aid (which caused Geldof to hold that shit-tacular Live 8 thing) and global warming.
Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Britain, has been pushing for years for the world community to not only meet the Kyoto guidelines (5% reduction in greenhouse emissions, below the 1990 levels, by 2007), but to surpass them. Bush came into office in 2000 and refused to ratify the Kyoto agreements, making the United States the only member of the G-8 (and 100+ other countries) not to take part. So, even though Blair has basically committed political suicide by invading Iraq (the only thing that saved the Labor Party in the recent elections is that the Conservative Party adopted the most idiotic campaign strategy, ever), Bush will not even consider these new guidelines. One of Bush's main lines to pass the buck off to others is to claim that because China is not party to the Kyoto guidelines, they will receive an advantage over US companies that will be forced to pay "hefty sums" to reduce emissions. I won't even debate the merits of a strategy that puts profits ahead of human health right now. Besides, Blair was able to get India, China, and other major developing nations to agree to sign on to his new regulations (50-70% reduction, as opposed to 5%) if the US would, thus negating Bush's main argument. He still wouldn't budge.
Instead, Bush is pushing for the construction of hundreds of new nuclear generators that are "safer" than their predecessors as a solution to global warming. The problem with this idea, aside from the fact that nuclear reactors will never be safe and still can kill millions of people should something go wrong, is that global warming is already happening. By keeping the amount of pollution being emitted the same, the problem does not get better. If anything, it gets worse.
Furthermore, as Mark Hertsgaard points out in an editorial in The Nation (from which I am getting most of this information), nuclear power is extremely expensive. It costs seven dollars to do the same amount of carbon displacement as one dollar does if you invest it in efficiency methods, such as better insulation in houses. Both wind and solar are much less capital-intensive than nuclear (as anyone who has ever played SimCity 2000 can attest), allowing a more grassroots effort to be made at power generation. No one is going to set up a nuclear reactor in their basement, but many already have put solar panels on their roofs.
Luckily, many in power in the United States are sidestepping Bush's intransigence. California is demanding emissions reductions from their cars, and many other states are considering similar legislation. However, without the punch of the federal government, many of these programs will be unable to effect the wide-ranging change necessary for the preservation of our way of life.
The G-8 summit starts in Gleneagles, Scotland in a few days. The G-8 summit is where the 7 richest nations of the world (and Russia, because they have a lot of nukes) meet to discuss policy, such as, say, the Kyoto global warming Protocol. I bring that up because the two main topics at this G-8 meeting are African aid (which caused Geldof to hold that shit-tacular Live 8 thing) and global warming.
Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Britain, has been pushing for years for the world community to not only meet the Kyoto guidelines (5% reduction in greenhouse emissions, below the 1990 levels, by 2007), but to surpass them. Bush came into office in 2000 and refused to ratify the Kyoto agreements, making the United States the only member of the G-8 (and 100+ other countries) not to take part. So, even though Blair has basically committed political suicide by invading Iraq (the only thing that saved the Labor Party in the recent elections is that the Conservative Party adopted the most idiotic campaign strategy, ever), Bush will not even consider these new guidelines. One of Bush's main lines to pass the buck off to others is to claim that because China is not party to the Kyoto guidelines, they will receive an advantage over US companies that will be forced to pay "hefty sums" to reduce emissions. I won't even debate the merits of a strategy that puts profits ahead of human health right now. Besides, Blair was able to get India, China, and other major developing nations to agree to sign on to his new regulations (50-70% reduction, as opposed to 5%) if the US would, thus negating Bush's main argument. He still wouldn't budge.
Instead, Bush is pushing for the construction of hundreds of new nuclear generators that are "safer" than their predecessors as a solution to global warming. The problem with this idea, aside from the fact that nuclear reactors will never be safe and still can kill millions of people should something go wrong, is that global warming is already happening. By keeping the amount of pollution being emitted the same, the problem does not get better. If anything, it gets worse.
Furthermore, as Mark Hertsgaard points out in an editorial in The Nation (from which I am getting most of this information), nuclear power is extremely expensive. It costs seven dollars to do the same amount of carbon displacement as one dollar does if you invest it in efficiency methods, such as better insulation in houses. Both wind and solar are much less capital-intensive than nuclear (as anyone who has ever played SimCity 2000 can attest), allowing a more grassroots effort to be made at power generation. No one is going to set up a nuclear reactor in their basement, but many already have put solar panels on their roofs.
Luckily, many in power in the United States are sidestepping Bush's intransigence. California is demanding emissions reductions from their cars, and many other states are considering similar legislation. However, without the punch of the federal government, many of these programs will be unable to effect the wide-ranging change necessary for the preservation of our way of life.
posted by Jimmy at 2:07 AM
<< Home