President Bush is struggling to find an acceptable compromise position on global warming. For years, he has said that the time wasn’t right to act on global warming. He rejected the Kyoto Protocol, dismissed setting benchmarks for carbon dioxide emissions, and repeatedly claimed that the issue needed further study. Lately, he’s been trying to moderate that stance somewhat, due to pressures from either Tony Blair, the Supreme Court, the new Democratic Congress, or some combination thereof. So, while he continues to reject the Kyoto Protocol, and has dismissed outright the recent ambitious German proposal, he has started to show some signs of progress. He has taken preliminary steps towards increasing regulations on automobile manufacturers, and just today he has proposed a new round of international talks, which must include China and India. The stipulation that China and India be included is important for two reasons. First, it addresses the common conservative complaint with the Kyoto Protocol, that it failed to hold those two polluters to the same standard that it holds the United States, thereby creating a competitive imbalance. Second, it reduces the probability that these talks will be successful to almost nothing.

China and India have long held that it would be unfair to hold them to the same standard as Europe and the United States. After all, they are still incredibly poor countries, measured per capita, who are struggling to modernize and industrialize any way they possibly can. They claim that they cannot afford to even potentially stifle new industries by holding them to strict environmental restrictions. Furthermore, they note that the United States and the European powers had no such restrictions when we were developing economically back in the eighteen hundreds; in fact, we all notoriously stripped our countries of countless environmental resources in our quest for wealth. China and India claim that it is completely unfair to hold them to that standard. The counter argument is that we didn’t know any better at the time, whereas the newly developing states do. Furthermore, American and European workers are already at a competitive disadvantage to Chinese and Indian workers when it comes to the drastic wage differentials; forcing us to conform to significantly more restrictive environmental policies will only exacerbate the problem.

Continue reading »

 

In case you hadn’t heard, Chinese President Hu Jintao is meeting with President Bush in the Oval Office this morning. As one might expect, this has ignited the usual chorus of people concerned that the United States is losing its competitive edge, or that China is becoming a global threat, or that they will soon be more powerful than us. So I thought this would be a perfect time to remind everyone out there about two key facts:

Fact #1: The United States will not remain the most powerful country in the world, either economically or militarily, forever.

Fact #2: No other country in the world will catch up to us any time soon.
Continue reading »

 

With all the controversy surrounding Iran and the IAEA, I thought it might be useful to talk about nuclear proliferation. Trying to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a lot like trying to contain a river after its started raining. All you can do is pile sandbags as fast as you can, but eventually one of two things will happen: either the river wins or it stops raining. Fundamentally, all it takes to develop nuclear weapons is a critical mass of intelligent people and money, both of which can be accumulated over time. Which means that, as much as the United States, the IAEA, and anyone else wants to prevent proliferation, if a country has the patience and the desire, all we can really do is delay the inevitable. So, with that in mind, here is a list of the current nuclear powers in the world:
Continue reading »

 

On October 8th there was a massive earthquake in Pakistan. Today (the 17th) aid finally reached the starving, homeless victims. That’s right, today . For those of you who don’t like math, that’s 9 days. Longer than a week. To emphasize how long that is, its pushing the boundaries of how long somebody can survive without water under ideal conditions . And these weren’t ideal conditions.

Now, billions of dollars were raised for Katrina victims from private philanthropy, and billions more have been pledged by the U.S. government. TV had commercials asking for aid every commercial break. Yahoo and Google both had “help the victims” links for weeks following the hurricane. However, I have yet to see a single plea for earthquake aid on television or the internet. The U.S. aid response has been at best slow and small.

Aside from the obvious moral obligation to help the hundreds of thousands that are suffering in the wake of the earthquake, there are practical reasons as well. Al-Queda survives and thrives on chaos. As of a month ago, Osama Bin Laden was alive and hiding in Pakistan . Hiding is easier when there’s lots of displaced people and no organization. Many people believe that poverty is one of the root causes of terrorism, including some nobel laureates .

So, if we’re really committed to the war on terror, what better way to spend our resources than to invest in aiding the earthquake victims and rebuilding Pakistan? It would decrease the chaos and reduce the ease of Al-Queda operation. It would endear the U.S. to the people of Pakistan, and in doing so reduce their sympathy towards Bin Laden and Al-Queda. At the very least, it would save a lot of lives.

Aid to Pakistan is both the moral and practical course of action. Bush should be making it a top priority, and jumping up and down in his eagerness to help. Instead, the earthquake is largely being ignored. I just don’t understand it.

© 2012 leftfielder.org login Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha