Perhaps I don't understand, if so, please enlighten me. On Oct 22, 1997 President Clinton gave a major speech on the Environment which I have commented on. On Oct 24, 1997, giving a major speech on the upcoming visit of the President of China, he outlined 4 critical areas of American concern. The trade deficit, human rights, missed the third one and the fourth was the statement, " China is the second largest producer of greenhouse gases after the US." He then spent several minutes discussing the importance of China and the US reaching an agreement on CO2 emissions at the upcoming Kyota Conference in Japan. With only one response from an Australian lady, there has been no comment to this post. Am I wrong in seeing the significance of this, are you all ruminating like cows chewing on your cud, or is it more important to discuss the trivial topic we have all commented on regarding the two basic assumptions taught in an obscure Economics class? For years the US government has dodged the Environmental issue allowing other governments like Canada to be remiss in their Rio promises. Now, in the space of one week, the President has highlighted the CO2 emissions problem in two major speeches. The newspapers hardly comment, the environmentalists haven't said anything significant, FW has been remarkably silent. The question that occurs to me, is what piece of information has been put on President Clinton's desk that caused him to venture into the minefield of the Environment? Sure, fringe groups and authors have been screaming for years and have tons of stats and they have not moved the government to act except to deny. It was only a few years ago, that President Bush refused to commit the US to reducing emission targets in Rio. (I'm going on memory here) Business is still against it claiming it will ruin the economy, the Republicans are against it and promise to hold it up in the Congress and the Senate. What does Clinton know that would cause him to get involved in all the political flak? Have any of you thought this through. America's prosperity is largely based on keeping the cost of non-renewable resources lower than it's competitors in Europe and Japan. (Read Jay Hanson's essays) They have very little reserves left in North America based on their consumption patterns. By raising the cost of fuel and increasing the cost of pollution, even to the moderate levels Clinton is suggesting, will totally change the US economy. Think of this and please correct my reasoning if it is wrong. Costs go up through pollution controls and fuel costs. Business has three choices. One, it can increase prices, passing the costs on to the consumer which means less disposable income in the marketplace which will lead to bankruptcies. Two, they can cut costs like labour and overhead causing more unemployment which lowers the amount of purchasing income in the economy. Three, they can absorb the costs by reducing profit. The third option is most disagreeable to business because it will impact the stock market which is over leveraged on Company earnings, which will cause a drop in share price, which will lower total Company value. This lowering of Company assets will cause many lenders to re-evaluate the credit positions of Companies and in many cases will create the need for all or a portion of outstanding loans to be paid off as the assets of the Company's have been reduced and therefore their collateral is worth less. Business leaders have to be shaking in their boots in my opinion. Politicians are in no better place. If they support President Clinton's goals, many of their constituencies are going to suffer increased unemployment, bankruptcy and a lower standard of living. Who can get re-elected on that platform. Without re-election, no power, no pension and no job. I can only conclude that someone came into Clinton's office with a set of figures that haven't been released to the public yet which are truly scary and the choice politically was to lead from the front or allow the public to know and answer for refusing to lead. The other choice may have come from business and I alluded to it before. The figures are bad, but business is not ready to deal with it yet and by putting forth a weak response, they hope to confuse the issue by the argument of what should the size of the response be. While everyone is arguing about seating arrangements in the lifeboat, the ocean liner is sinking. The ultra rich and corporate elite feel that even though the problems may be terrible, they have enough wealth to insulate themselves while the rest of us suffer. The smoke in Indonesia, the collapse of Thailand's currency, the 30% drop in value of the Hong Kong exchange, the stagnation in Japan are all current problems in the Pacific Rim and when you add in famine in Korea, potential famine in Indonesia (today's Ottawa Citizen) the transfer of Hong Kong to China, all these issues are of major potential for calamity. In Europe, we have massive unemployment, major currency problems as countries try and meet the EU standards for Euro-currency. France and Italy trying a 35 hour work week. Germany limiting the number of immigrant workers, Bosnia, a time bomb waiting to go off, Russia in sad disarray with crime and poverty of immense proportions, there is no island of stability in Europe and with all those problems, they are willing to embark on major environmental change beyond what President Clinton is offering. What do they know that we don't know yet? The Middle East is still a mess. Israel and the Arab world continue to teeter on the brink of war. Iran, Iraq and Syria all may experience major political change in the next few years. Moslem extremists are killing wantonly in Algeria, Saudi Arabia may have succession troubles if someone in the Royal family dies and the majority of the worlds oil is still there. This is like having the community bank in a neighborhood of gang warfare, hardly the most stable place for the non-renewable energy we all need. India and China have populations of over 1 billion people each with no food reserves, El Nino about to change the weather patterns over the next 18 months and the government mandate of growth based on the use of non-renewable resources. It's even scary to think about. Now, I know this list is for FutureWork and this is a lot about politics. However it is within the political, environmental, economic spheres that work is performed. In my opinion, Clinton's two speeches are indications of change of major proportions happening right now - in Oct 1997. Perhaps everyone is in shock. In my opinion, I don't think we know all the facts yet and that they are going to be very scary. What do you think? , ,,, ave a
