Yesterday, we saw the best display of arrogant ignorance when P. Bush managed to tell the whole world loud and clear that "he doesn't know" and mostly, "he doesn't care". I don't think that we stand a chance with this guy to even do what his father did for the metrication effort. The only thing he may manage to do is to deepen America into isolationism and thus lay the groundwork for a bitter awakening which will help cool down some of the over-self-confidence. This would help but it is a dark scenario. A. -----Original Message----- From: James J. Wentworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday 30 March 2001 02:39 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:11946] Re: Bush Han, I think I can encapsulate the mindset of the new president (and his administration) thusly: "America is the greatest nation on Earth...what America does best is create wealth...the creation of wealth is a good thing, and anything or anyone that stands in the way of this is bad...oil makes our economy thrive, so oil is good...those who talk about global warming being caused by burning oil are just a bunch of tree-hugging hippies and less successful countries who don't believe in working hard to become wealthy (those countries have *socialized medicine*, for goodness' sake! That takes money away from businesses)...the less successful countries are just jealous of our success and want to hold us back...and don't forget that we saved your collective posterior in World War I and World War II and kept the Russians away from you for 40+ years...you should prostrate yourselves before us in thanks for this every day, and you should demonstrate your gratitude by always bending to our will...after all, we could take you over if we wanted to." Jason ----- Original Message ----- From: Han Maenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 9:06 PM Subject: [USMA:11944] Bush > To-day's Irish Times commentary about Bush and the Kyoto Protocol. This may > seem to be off topic, but it can parallel many other issues, metric one of > them. Metrication could be rejected by Bush on the same grounds which are > cited here. > > Han > > Friday, March 30, 2001 > > Bush Backs Out > > The rest of the world, including the Government, has reacted with > justifiable anger and outrage to the announcement that President George W. > Bush has rejected the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which commits > signatory States to reduce their emissions of the greenhouse gases that > cause global warming. Since the United States is responsible for at least 25 > per cent of worldwide emissions, with only four per cent of world > population, the decision appears to confirm a **pattern of arrogant > unilateralism in the emerging Bush foreign policy.** > > That is exemplified by the terms of the announcement, which said the > protocol "exempts the developing countries around the world and it is not in > the US economy's best interests". Mr Bush said yesterday he would not accept > a plan "which will harm the American economy and harm American workers". > > If that is the way his administration wants to play the international game > it would be as well they are fully aware of the consequences. Despite its > military hegemony and economic strength the US is highly interdependent with > the rest of the world and relies on its goodwill for its own prosperity and > security. > > A refusal to co-operate on a crucial issue like climate change will affect > other important negotiations, such as those on world trade, genetically > modified food and food additives, as well as more conventional foreign > policy matters where the US needs a favourable outcome to protect its > interests. > > Such consequences were spelled out by the European Union's Environment > Commissioner, Ms Margot Wallstrom. She is likely to get support from EU > environment ministers at their informal meeting in Sweden this weekend. They > will hear initial responses from other European meetings with Mr Bush and > his advisers, at which they will strongly urge him to reconsider this > decision. > > Several EU leaders said they do not believe this is Washington's last word > on the matter. But it will not be easy to persuade the US to come back into > the Kyoto Protocol regime rather than attempt to negotiate a new agreement, > as the Bush administration says it wants to do. > > Negotiations on implementing Kyoto broke down in The Hague last November > after the EU and the US failed to reach agreement on the use of forests in > the developing world to absorb greenhouse gases. The hostile reaction to > this decision should jolt the new administration into a clearer realisation > that in a more multipolar world it will be much more difficult to get its > way. > > It is one thing to say - which is true - that Kyoto is incapable of > ratification because of overwhelming opposition in the US Senate, or to > propose alternative means of reducing emissions using new technology. It is > quite another to make such unilateral announcements. US allies and partners > should not abandon the Kyoto Protocol but exert maximum pressure on the US > to re-engage with it. > > It is unacceptable that the US should so blithely disregard its obligations > on such a central issue of world concern. This is especially so since there > is more than a hint that the administration is inclined to reject the firm > international scientific consensus that global warming is indeed caused by > human activity - principally the burning of fossil fuels in the most > developed States, and primarily in the US itself. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >
