Despite opposition from the USA the rest of the world has signed up for a watered down Kyoto Protocol. The country responsible for the biggest part of the carbon pollution of the atmosphere has decided not to take any action to reduce their output of this element.
The arguments for this stand put forward by the Bush administration are flawed.
It might be time for the rest of the world to boycott American goods, which are produced in an environmentally unfriendly manner.
Voters of the USA: Please make G.W.Bush a one-time mistake.
I’d just like to take this opportunity to thank President Bush for improving the perception that the English have of Americans during his recent visit to London.
Yes, thank you for describing HRH Queen Elizabeth II, a women who has been head of state of several countries since around the time you were born, Mr. President, as “neat”.
And thank you for demonstrating your commitment to your principles in not backing down before your allies on the issues of global warming or the missile defense system.
And, of course, you’re not afraid to handle the tough questions: when a young child asked you what the White House was like, the entirety of your response was “It’s white.” Brief, to the point, and uncompromising in its simplicity.
It’s the little things that prove the measure of a man. And now all of Britain can see just how big a man you really are.
Let me think: anti-Bush OP with a hint of anti-Americanism (or at least unfair generalisations); wry apologies by Americans not overly keen on Bush; cautionary “erm…” posts by Europeans not wanting yet another US vs the world flame-fest; angry US posters pointing out that other countries aren’t exactly whiter-than-white (and overreacting in the process); rebukes by Europeans annoyed at stereotypes/generalisations; more stereotypes and generalisations on both sides; general air of resignation.
In short: Bush has not made any friends abroad. That’s his choice. Tarring all Americans with the same brush is neither accurate or fair. Tarring all Europeans as high-and-mighty won’t help either.
I suppose this falls into the “wry apologies” category, but I’m not suggesting that Bush is representative of Americans, or even of the people who actually voted for him; merely that others in the world may perceive him as such. And I’m willing to ignore the “English are Americans” thing as down to some staff member who didn’t proofread a form letter well enough.
I would, however, like a President who can demonstrate at least a modicum of diplomatic skills, who can represent both the interests and the image of his (and my) country in the best possible way, and who, in short, will not require so many of us Americans to profer the apologies in the first place.
For what it’s worth, on the subject of the OP, my pals in the Press Corps currently have the betting line at 60-40 he wins a second term.
I think they’re most factoring the ‘incumbent advantage’ against the somewhat thin (at this point, anyway) Democratic field. Who’s it going to be? Daschle? Gephardt? Gore?
Heck, my money is on Lieberman having the best shot. But getting a Jew (like me, for instance) the nomination is gonna be hard hard hard.
What’s wrong with describing the Queen as “neat”? She’s on of the most tidy, never-rumpled-in-public people I’ve ever seen. Admittedly, “dignified” or “impressive” would have been better, but what’s a few syllables between friends?
Hey, Jonathan Chance, what are the odds that McCain jumps ship? He is one of the few Republicans I’d vote for, and if he was a third wheel in 2004, it upset the Repubs very easily, letting some crappy Democrat slide in. Too bad I ain’t old enough to run…
The rest of the world should thank us for the fortitude of putting up with Dubya for four years.
When you think of it, what would the Kyoto Protocols chance of passage be without Dubyas staunch refusal to sign. In my opinion, the rest of the world passed the agreement to spite Dubya.
With its passage, business in the U.S. will start to bring pressure to bear to get Dubya or his heir to do the right thing and join in the agreement.
The rest of the world? I don’t believe Japan has signed on yet. And another point, can this accord not be enacted without U.S. participation anyway? Here’s a link that would seem to indicate that is a possibility. Allow me to quote a snippet.
Finally, yes, the United States produces approximately 20% of the airborne carbon dixoide. However, the U.S. is also responsible for 25% of the world’s industrial output. Apparently, we produce less CO[sub]2[/sub] per unit of production than others. I’t sounds that is may be easier (and cheaper) to concentrate on the worst offenders, at least initially.
Sorry 'bout the rational response; I know that isn’t what you were looking for here. Tough shit.
The only country to have ratified the Kyoto Agreement is that powerhouse economy of Romania. snork
Kyoto would have been soundly trounced by the United States Senate.
China, like all 6,000 year old “developing countries” is exempt from Kyoto as well.
Notice it wasn’t that long ago that doomsayers were fretting about a global “Ice Age”; later, global “warming” now just global “change”
Kyoto is just a thinly veiled attempt to effect control of our economy by outside interests. The sad fact is nobody is certain what the effects of industrialization is on the global climate. Better find something else to blame on the President, he’s merely rubber stamping the general consensus of congress.
So 165 countries have “joined” in on this agreement. Why don’t we wait to slap Bush around until at least a few of these 165 countries have “ratified” this agreement.
Hell, apparently none of these other 165 (or whatever the number was) are willing to stand by principle and do the right thing unless the United States does it as well. I don’t see how we are stopping any country from reducing its emissions level to pre-1990 levels.
Other countries won’t do it unless we do it. We won’t consider it unless China and India have to do it. Sounds like everybody is passing the buck and Bush just finally stood up and said enough. Clinton kept the damn thing on the table for eight years, even though he never had any intention of signing it. No democrat voted to ratify it.
Japan refused to sign onto the “watered down” version until its economic demands were met. We’re doing the same thing.
I’ll just suppose you’ve got a few relative cites that can back up your accusation. My suspicion is plants in the USA as far cleaner and enviro-friendly than those in China, Pakistan, Japan, Taiwan, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
From my viewpoint, the o.p. (for the most part) sounds like nothing more than a BAD case of sore-ass that Silicon Valley hasn’t moved to the hills of Mr. Gores’ Tennessee.
The voters did not make any mistake. The Supreme Court did.
Of course. It’s common knowledge that the political leaders in every country in the world make major economic decisions exclusively for the purpose of annoying an American politician. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE] Clinton kept the damn thing on the table for eight years/QUOTE]
1997 to 2000 is eight years. I guess “eight” is one of those words that has different meanings in English and Republicanspeak.
When was that, exactly?
Actually, we’re just using this talk of “global warming” and “the Kyoto protocol” to keep everybody distracted while our black helicopters move into position. :rolleyes:
Usually a discussion like this in the pit brings out flames that could pale mount Etna. An onslaught of generalisations written in exuberant English, laced with vile puns and funny stereotyping. I was looking forward to this.
Crusoe was right: My only intention by the my post was to generate: “world flame-fest” or as London_Calling said it:
“Let the mindless, nationalistic Games commence…”
I failed miserably. Maybe it has been done to many times or maybe the divide between Europe and the USA is just oceanic…