Global Warming

We all know that George Bush's standard answer for the last 5 years on global warming is that "the evidence isn't in yet", and while the President is willing to accept the flimsiest proof of WMDs, "last throes" of insurgencies and safety from terrorism, somehow when it comes to an environmental problem that is increasingly accepted as fact even by previous skeptics, the jury is still out.

And so this article should come as no surprise. The Senate has defeated a bill to cap the allowed amount of greenhouse gasses (a first step towards ultimately reducing them and perhaps helping to solve the problem). At the same time, the Senate as also decided that it's within their purview to shove liquefied natural gas terminals down states throats, even though it would seem that, not specifically given to the Feds in the Constitution, the existence and location of these sites should be a State's rights issue.

But back to the greenhouse gasses bit. This article contains a line which is, I think, emblematic of the Bush Administration's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on anything related to the environment:

It was a victory for President Bush's policies that focus on voluntary actions by industry to address the problem.

That's right, President Bush is relying on industry to voluntarily cut greenhouse gasses. Um, Mr. President, with all due respect, corporations act with a selfishness and a concern for (and even awareness of) other people normally found in a two year old. If you don't watch over them, they'll opt for the lowest cost option nearly every time, and do you want to know why?

Because WE, the citizens of the U.S. are also short sighted. We're all aware of the conditions under which the clothing at Wal*Mart must be made, in order for them to sell for $5 a shirt which sells down the street for $25, and most of us are even happy to speak out against those conditions... until it's time to buy a shirt, and then we go to Wal*Mart and buy that shirt made in a sweatshop because it's cheaper.

The same is true in all walks of life. Very few among us have the self control and the moral outrage to intentionally pay more for something, because of what the cheaper product represents.

And when corporations are faced with the choice between having a good reputation among consumers, but having 10% higher costs (and thus prices) or being seen as a polluter, but the cheapest source of product, most will opt for the second route, knowing that most of us will buy our product from the cheapest producer.

And you know what? That's part of the function of government, to protect us from ourselves. To put people into jobs where they think about these things and solve these problems FOR us, so that we don't have to do it ourselves. Make sure all of the corporations follow the rules, so that we don't have to keep track of which ones do and don't, and then try to have the resolve to spend more of our hard-earned cash on products which are only more expensive because their makers followed the rules.

"Voluntary Actions" my fanny. Just one more example of the Bush Administration selling the future of the environment for the short term profits of the corporations whom he has mistaken for "the people" as in "my job is to serve the people."

Copyright (c) June 25, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net