SubscribeFriedman's in dreamland. Kyoto is dead, and has been dead for years ... has been from the day it was created, really. The only difference here is that Bush had the balls to say so publicly, instead of letting it die slowly of neglect behind the scenes while publicly lying about its RSN implementation as every other country's leader has been doing (especially in Europe). It will never be ratified. It has never been ratified ANYWHERE. It is total BS, and everyone knows this, including Friedman.
BTW, Friedman provides no proof that this so-called grass roots campaign is meeting with any actual success. Is it? (Not that it would here regardless.)
posted by aaron at 6:41 AM on June 1, 2001
Yes. He made it quite clear that the right to use energy without feeling guilty is not incompatible with common-sense conservation: "What we need to do is make certain that we're able to get those resources in an efficient way, in a way that also emphasizes protecting the environment and conservation, into the hands of consumers so they can make the choices that they want to make as they live their lives day to day."
Besides, Fleischer was responding to an intentionally loaded claim from a liberal reporter that the solution to all energy problems, and the ONLY solution, was conservation conservation conservation. His statement says more about his ability to think fast on his feet than anything else.
if the pro-oil stance of the present administration wasn't so patent...
What does "pro-oil" mean? Is there a way for the administration to be oil-neutral in your view? Or is it one of those things where if they're not spending every moment trying to find ways to cease all oil usage everywhere, they're merely lackeys of Big Oil?
posted by aaron at 10:57 AM on June 1, 2001
"Pro- oil" means favoring or supporting the oil corporations and the use of oil resources even when it's counter-productive to do so. It means a slavish devotion to the notion of oil, now and forever, simply because at one time and to some extent currently it's extremely useful. It means not allowing for or recognizing for the possibility that the long-term growth and success of America and the human species may need to be made with far less dependence on oil. It means never being able to see beyond this quarter's profits or this campaign cycle's donations to recognize a long-term disaster in the making.
Jesus, you can be really short-sighted and simple-minded sometimes.
There's a big lie out there that businesses act in their own best interest. This is untrue. Oil is a finite resource, and in large amounts of usage does cause a decidely negative environmental impact that may include the eventual decimation of our "American" standard of living, among others. In that climate (no pun intended) the oil companies will have a hard time moving their product. That day may be 10 years off, or 50. However, estimates of our global oil resources still only last a few decades, far less if the rest of the world achieved the American standard of usage and lifestyle, in which case we may have only 10 or so.
If nothing else, the market will be fair- if that day comes, and the oil is scarce, the market will scream demand for, and receive, energy supply completely unrelated to oil.
Like I said, businesses don't look out for their best interests, any more than teenagers who can't see beyond tomorrow....
posted by hincandenza at 11:14 AM on June 1, 2001
« Older Boris Johnson, crying into his beer, describes the... | In fact, 18 of the state's 67 ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ParisParamus at 4:47 AM on June 1, 2001