When reading Nature, Fossil Fuels, and Global Warming
I couldn’t help but notice Cecil’s political bias. He may have left himself an out by saying the 3 points were from Critics, but they sure sounded like his words, and not quotes or an exact interpretation. For example:
Under Bush the U.S. has disavowed the Kyoto agreement
it’s not worth debating whether it’s moral for the developed world to pollute (or consume) more than its share
In the long term, the only real solution is conservation. But Americans, who in 1990 accounted for 36 percent of world greenhouse gas emissions, don’t conserve for squat–witness our love affair with the SUV.
This article seemed very pro-Kyoto (which would have put America at a disadvantage to countries like China), anti-Bush (it’s what the People wanted, not just Bush), and he attacked SUVs, which are blamed for a little too much in my opinion.
It just seemed to me that this article was written by a very liberal environmentalist democrat (which Cecil may be, but he’s always been above bias in the past) or an anti-American European.
I’m not entirely sure that this response shows a left bias as much a fear and avoidance of a right bias.
For one thing, it might have been good to mention that the Bush administration killed the Kyoto deal specifically because the “T4P” concept was excluded from the final draft.
Or maybe it’s just the opinion of someone who gives more credence to his own semi-scientific (please forgive me, Unc, I mean it in the very best way) exploration than to political viewpoints…?
I happen to agree with the view expressed - planting four trees a year doesn’t clear the conscience of individuals whose energy expenditures outmatch those of most smaller third-world countries.
Don’t get me wrong, I love my T.V. and my hot bath and my four-door sedan that goes 80mph on the highway. I will probably be one of the last people on the planet to willingly give up my comforts. But I also carry my guilt proudly on my own shoulders. In a leather bag, natch.