---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:45:01 -0500
From: "Doug H." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: US Says: Kill first Green later!!!
Another example of the strangeness of "WashingtonConsensus" economics. These people
need to learn to
subtract !!!!
> Fort Worth Editorial Columnists
>
> Molly Ivins
>
>
> Updated: Saturday, May. 16, 1998 at 18:49 CDT
>
> Nothing like a cloud of gray gunk for a wake-up call
>
> AMARILLO -- "You can't get Americans to pay attention to what is
> happening in other countries," said one of the smartest people in
> North Texas recently.
>
> But in the perverse way that life has of making even the obvious
> untrue, lo, there appeared over Texas an immense cloud of gray
> gunk, blotting out the sun, making children sick, grounding medical
> helicopters and otherwise making life unpleasant and shorter.
>
> It does rather draw the attention to what is happening in Guatemala,
> Honduras and southern Mexico.
>
> It also has the happy side effect of making David Landes, author of
> the new book `The Wealth and Poverty of Nations,' look like a
> genius. I warn you, this book is a whopper (500 pages, W.W.
> Norton & Co.) but well worth the wrist strain to hold it up. Read and
> take heed:
>
> "The old division of the world into two power blocs, West and East,
> has subsided. Now the big challenge and threat is the gap in wealth
> and health that separates rich and poor. . . . Here is the greatest
> single problem and danger facing the world of the Third Millennium.
> The only other worry that comes close is environmental
> deterioration, and the two are intimately connected, indeed are one.
> They are because wealth entails not only consumption but also
> waste, not only production but also destruction. It is this waste and
> destruction, which has increased enormously with output and
> income, that threatens the space we live in and move in. . . .
>
> "Some countries are not only `not' gaining; they are growing poorer,
> relatively and sometimes absolutely. Others are barely holding their
> own. Others are catching up. Our task (the rich countries), in our
> own interest as well as theirs, is to help the poor become healthier
> and wealthier. If we do not, they will seek to take what they cannot
> make; and if they cannot earn by exporting commodities, they will
> export people. In short, wealth is an irresistible magnet; and poverty
> is a potentially raging contaminant; it cannot be segregated, and
> our peace and prosperity depend in the long run on the well-being
> of others."
>
> Nothing like a vast cloud of gray gunk to make one notice that very
> truth.
>
> Another encouraging nudge, as it were, in the same direction
> comes from India and almost certainly Pakistan, merrily testing
> nuclear weapons as though a nuclear war on the Indian
> subcontinent would have no effect on the rest of the world. Oops,
> time to pay attention to a few things more important than the last
> episode of `Seinfeld.' As it says on the side mirror of my pickup,
> "Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear."
>
> Landes, in his summary chapter, arrives at some tentative
> conclusions and recommendations with which no thoughtful person
> can argue (mostly because they are so broad and simple as to be
> cliches).
>
> In response to the always timely question, "What is to be done?," I
> cannot rival Landes' depth of research or his sweep of knowledge,
> but I do have one modest suggestion.
>
> As you probably know, the United States subsidizes the weapons
> industry, heavily. Although in theory we do not promote or export
> nuclear weapons, in fact, we have been so careless and so greedy
> that we have effectively let nuclear technology, either ours or that of
> the hard-pressed Russians, get into all kinds of national hands.
>
> In a truly colossal act of folly, we have even repealed our own ban
> on sending jet fighters to Latin America, a ban that has stood since
> Jimmy Carter's presidency. After unusually heavy lobbying by
> American arms manufacturers, the Clinton administration decided
> that modern jet fighters were just what Latin America needs. And, of
> course, we have generous loan programs in order to subsidize our
> Latin American allies' purchase of our jet fighters.
>
> According to a new study by the National Commission for
> Economic Conversion and Disarmament and the Institute for Policy
> Studies, we are spending `12 times' as much promoting U.S. arms
> exports as we do promoting our exports of environmental
> technology. Yet there is a $400 billion-plus market for
> environmental technologies, `double' the size of the world market
> for all types of military hardware. The report, "A Tale of Two
> Markets," notes that among other stupidities, this flies directly in the
> face of the first rule of market competition: Concentrate resources
> on growth opportunities.
>
> The report (which has only been covered by NPR and Inter Press
> Service, the rest of the media being too busy with Monica
> Lewinsky) contains a detailed study of the decline in the arms
> market and the following ominous note: "Buyers are becoming
> bolder as the market shrinks. Third World customers now insist on
> co-production deals aimed at transferring military technology to
> them."
>
> Now, what makes more sense: continuing to subsidize the export of
> arms and military technology, or promoting the export of
> environmental, pollution-reducing technologies? We have defense
> aid programs, export credits, loan write-offs and free leases for
> military hardware, amounting to almost $7 billion in 1995. Why not
> put that money into environmental exports? As Landes points out,
> our most valuable resources are the gains in the application of
> knowledge and science to technology.
>
> After the gray gunk appeared, Texas Gov. Shrub Bush popped up
> and offered to send experts in fighting forest fires down to Chiapas
> (offer waiting on State Department protocol). Since the area was
> known to be especially vulnerable to forest fires this years, a little
> foresight would have been a lot more helpful than much hindsight.
> As who-knows-how-many thousands of acres of irreplaceable rain
> forest burn, and Texas breathes in the resulting gunk, you might
> consider taking pen in hand to write your elected representative on
> this matter.
>
> Molly Ivins is a columnist for the `Star-Telegram.' You may write to
> her at 1005 Congress Ave., Suite 920, Austin, TX 78701; call her at
> (512) 476-8908; or email her at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. **
