Keith,
When is a human like Cancer? I really
don't mean to equate this with the recent situation that we all pray will
be good for you. And for our discussion as a result.
But systems thought requires that we think
systematically and I don't understand the principle that you are
advocating. In music it does make a difference where a major
scale is placed but it is still a major scale. The issue of global
warming, pollution and the rise in skin cancer as a result of a decline in the
ozone is not in doubt and even if it was would not a temperate mind indicate
that it would be better to think conservatively in the matter? Think
about how the system is affected? We are a system, the
earth is a system and what is the difference between a group of our cells
working against us for their own survival and our doing the same to the
earth? One would hope that the difference would be
consciousness of the future generations need for an inheritance beyond simple
cash. If they spend all of their cash on oxygen bottles, what's the
point?
As for American's "leading the way", the issue is
power. The part of the nation that has to do with the greatest
accumulation of wealth built on the use of natural resource industries that
have government subsidies (oil depletion allowance for example or a 300 million
dollar cap on liability for Nuclear Power) or cheap land built on 19th century
manifest destiny policies towards mining interests -- these individuals will
only "lead the way" kicking and screaming.
They are the ones that would encourage their own
children to eat beef because of their own beef stocks or to go into shark
infested waters because they own the beach. They are not
developers but exploiters. I know them first hand from the lead and
zinc mines on the "protected" Indian Reserves. They could
almost make you agree with Stalin about the Kulaks. Remember Rupert
Murdoch states with a straight face that his news organizations do not have a
bias. I assume that such a statement is sincere since simple
lies are no basis for
discussion.
If that is the Glassman of the Cato Institute then
his agenda is to do away with taxes and kill the "not-for-profit" industries
like culture, health, education and all of the charities. He has no
sense of connection to the rest of us other than as individual
contracts. Complexity represents an opportunity for
exploitation in that system of thinking. His Masters are
the Koch brothers who are in a massive family fight over their father's estate
built upon mineral exploitation. I point this out simply to say that
they and he are not without conflicts of interest when talking about these
things. Sort of like Darman's "sell them sunglasses and
sunshade" as an answer to the ozone hole.
REH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 2:59 AM
Subject: Political agenda of
Kyoto
> complex vis-a-vis America and that the Kyoto proposals are as much about
> political point-scoring as science, an FWer had kindly sent me an article
> by James K. Glassman which details this point a little more.
>
> As I've said before, what follows is not an argument against Kyoto. The
> main one is that we simply don't know enough about a very complex matter.
> Nevertheless, the following paragraphs concern the real world of politics
> which can't simply be avoided by trying to work up an avalanche of
> hysteria. The article concerns a meeting at The Hague last year.
>
> <<<<
> Around the convention hall, protesters had piled sandbags six feet high to
> demonstrate how rising temperatures would cause rising flood waters
> (another unproven contention). Others carried signs with weird slogans like
> "Don't Melt the Penguins." And on Thanksgiving Day, a woman threw a
> whipped-cream-and-berry pie in the face of Frank Loy, the weary U.S.
> negotiator. Meanwhile, 225 accredited Greenpeace lobbyists -- who comprised
> the single largest presence at The Hague -- roamed the hall, heaping scorn
> on the Americans, especially on the handful of U.S. congressmen who had
> come to observe.
>
> What doomed the meeting from the start was that the Europeans never
> intended to let other countries utilize sinks and emissions trading to a
> useful degree. The Europeans were after something more: an economic edge
> over the U.S. Without sinks and trading, the U.S. could meet the Kyoto
> targets only by sharply increasing the price of fossil fuels. Gasoline
> would rise by 50 cents or more a gallon; the cost of running industrial
> plants and energy-hungry computers would soar. According to a consensus of
> projections, the growth of gross domestic product in the U.S. would be cut
> by more than half as businesses moved offshore to escape the high tax.
>
> Yet without more European cooperation, the U.S. isn't likely to ratify
> Kyoto. Around the time the protocol was drafted, the U.S. Senate resolved,
> 95-0, that it would not approve a climate treaty that: 1) did not force
> developing countries also to cut emissions, and 2) "would result in serious
> harm to the economy of the United States."
> >>>>
>
> Once again, when the evidence is more complete and there is unanimity among
> climatologists, then I'm quite sure that America would jump on board --
> indeed, lead the way.
>
> Keith Hudson
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
> 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
> Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ________________________________________________________________________
