Log in

No account? Create an account
Vexen Crabtree 2015


Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree 2015

Oil, Pollution and the Kyoto Protocol


The Kyoto Protocol versus the USA. America is the worlds biggest polluter by far, and is also the most developed country doing least about pollution and waste. The USAs atrocious record on environmental issues is one reason why people hate the USA. By Vexen Crabtree

  • 1
Wow, it’s simple to complain about the most powerful nation in the world because everyone does it. But, how about some facts that aren’t quoted from the BBC? I’m not saying that I am the biggest supporter of President Bush—I’m a democrat—but it is hard to take any report seriously if the source information comes from a singular source. I don’t know about the UK, but in the United States we are taught that a diversity of information helps to support a viewpoint better than taking information derived from one source and touting the product as a truly informative essay. I really care about the environment and I realize that we need to get a democrat or an environmentally friendly republican in office—it has been a pattern trough out history. I would not try out for Bush’s cheerleading squad, but even though he has increased the amount of carbon dioxide emissions allowed by law into the environment, the overall amount of emissions into the atmosphere have decreased. They will simply decrease at a slower pace. On a more patriotic note, it is interesting that many nations choose to bash the United States rather than to consider their own problems. Yeah Britain emits a lower amount of carbon dioxide—but it isn’t nearly as productive. Your website makes it look like your organization is a cult, so it makes sense that you information would be fundamentally ethnocentric and bias.

Please note that I personally do not complain about the USA, I have merely listed reasons that other people have given for disliking the USA.

The sources are wide and varied, from USA sources to British broadsheets and random people from the internet... it's not a scholarly effort at sociology, but, these are the reasons people give.

It is ironic that the USA teaches diversity of information (according to you), yet USA news services are famous, in the West, for being shockingly USA-centric!

Studying history (Europeans have a natural feel for history), one of the main components was looking at sources at criticising them, and looking for diversity in sources and information.

My organisation?? I don't have an organisation! I consider myself quite organized though, but I don't think that counts!

I don't think my information is ethnocentric, as it quotes Arabs, Western Europeans, Americans and far Eastern groups. It's rather diverse in that sense.

UK isn't as productive, we're simply not rich any more... we got a problem in that our military and conservative governments (when in power) still think of us as a worldwide colonial power... but we're not! We're a relatively small country with a relatively small population.

why satanism?

I think you reiteration of the BBC info on global warming is fine.

But you seem to be using that to promote stupid stuff like fights about religion?

I don't get it. Just leave environmentalism alone! Environmentalists don't need the help of people who are religious fanatics, fundamentalists, satanists, etc.

Fight to separate church and state, fight to separate environmental issues from all religions.

your right about one thing...yes it is easy to complain about the US, simply because they are the most selfish nation when it comes to environmental safety. I'm alright jack, seems to be their stance. Well the truth is the future is not alright and future generations will not be alright. You maybe taught in the US that diversity of information makes for better arguement, shame your not taught to think of others.
Funny its those from the US who support Bush's bullying tactics and selfish way of running his country.

Not all of us do! In fact, almost 50% of us didn't vote for him twice. Don't forget that despite the US-corporate-biased media and Bush-bullying adminsitration, there are many Americans that don't support it and are trying to fight it. His onslaught of the environment isn't just global, it's here in the US too - reducing protections on our air and water quality. The media just doesn't mention these things - or the groups that are fighting it.

"I don’t know about the UK, but in the United States we are taught that a diversity of information helps to support a viewpoint better than taking information derived from one source "

I would disagree with that and point you to George Galloway's appearance in the US Senate. If you wish I could point you to ountless other examples. It may be what's taught but it's not what's always carried out. McCarthur witch trials etc ... America is always very one sided. I wonder how many American University students essays on Communism show Communist theory in a positive light. I doubt only a few if any!

In agreement-Leanna Payne part 1

The BBC is partially govenrment funded, and if it is the only source it is hard to claim unbias.
And from Vexen's reply to your original post im am further inclined to agree with your statement, "Your website makes it look like your organization is a cult, so it makes sense that you information would be fundamentally ethnocentric and bias."
Vexen wrote, "America is a dangerous and irresponsible country as long it materialistically maintains that its own selfish wellbeing is more important than any long-term world wide problems, even where it is the USA itself that causes those problems! With ... 25% of the whole worlds carbon dioxide's emissions, the USA appears to take responsibility for 0% of the consequences as long their bank balance is not affected." This is yet another bias remark, i find Vexen is guilty of voluntary blindness when it comes to reporting all the facts.
Although some perceive it as a sad Bush Bash excuse (like Vexen), George Bush made an excellent decision when he famously withdrew American adherence to Kyoto in January 2001. This is generally perceived by a uneducated few as a story of a greedy capitalist who refused to help protect the environment against the requests of the world in general and the Americans in particular. Unfortunately, the authors of this website are guilty of blindness in terms of these so called facts. In reality it was an extremely educated decision to withdraw.
• In 1997 with Bill Clinton as President, the US senate rejected the Kyoto protocol by a vote of 95-0. Rightly or wrongly it was rejected by the US senate, without any connection to Bush. At the end of his term Clinton signed an executive order reaffirming America's adherence of Kyoto. The executive order became a difficult decision for Bush. He had to either accept Clinton's unilateral executive order knowing it would never get through the Senate or reject it and abide by the protocol's 95-0 defeat in the US senate.
• By mid-2001, four years after the Kyoto conference, not one of the 167 other signatories had yet to ratify the protocol.
• We are often told that America, with just 5% of the world’s population, produces 25% of the world’s pollution. But they also produce 25% of the world's goods and services.
• Only on May 31 2002 did the EU ratify the protocol, but it is still unknown if there is any serious attempt regarding implementation.
Without a doubt, no US senate will ever execute a protocol that so unfairly forces the US to dial back on production and energy consumption whilst allowing polluters, some of which are just as large, like Brazil, India, and China in particular to carry on comparatively unaffected.

Would the British government still sign the protocol if they had the same kind of economy?

(I am pressed for space please see part 2 for the continuation of my relpy :))

In agreement-Leanna Payne part 2

Vexen, I also disagree with your statement, "The USA polices the world's military nations, keeping check on their weaponry and intentions. It does not do the same with matters of global health or pollution. The USA is by far the world's biggest polluter and is also the country that is seen as least active in fighting world pollution. Failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol is a serious mistake and much of the world is left in shock and horror that the USA ignores these issues." as there also appears to be extremely rational and convincing evidence regarding whether or not carbon dioxide emissions affect climate. That said, doing nothing carries an objectionable risk and so something needs to be done to preserve the sustainability of our environment. Kyoto does not appear to be the answer. Instead of leveraging on the failed protocol as a political tool against Bush, the powers that be should work on a new solution. The current US plan, of allowing polluters to trade polluting permits appears to create an incentive to pollute effectively so that you use up less of your credits, allowing you to earn money by trading these credits away. This is a much more effective solution to the emissions overdose, there is adequate incentive, and the economy can continue to prosper with contained releases of these emissions. All the nations in the UNFCCC should recognize that some businesses use more energy than others, but the strategy everywhere should be the same. They should after establishing the credits, over time, reduce our use of energy as much as possible. Then, switch to renewable sources of power where it makes economic sense.

I suggest, Vexen, that you consider looking at these issues from more of a global standpoint than a bias one, as, though you ar claiming to be impartial, you tend to make unrelated and unjustifiable remarks at the United State's expense.

  • 1