Wed, Sep 3rd 2008, 01:03

N.J. SLABBERT

The US possesses an extraordinary opportunity to lead the world in addressing the global environmental challenge. This does not involve regulation but the active promotion by the US Government of a massive research program to develop not only alternative fuel sources but environmentally friendly technologies across the board. This should involve creative private sector / public sector / academic partnerships. The US is better equipped for such a program than any other country. Various US Government agencies already have structures (and in some cases resources) suitable to this objective. To work, the creation of a new era of innovative environmental technology needs to be made a Cabinet-level responsibility. - Nicholas J. Slabbert

Wed, Sep 3rd 2008, 20:36

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Platinum Contributor (643)

The US has a challenge, but we're not the only ones. The Indiand and Chinese both have an equal challenge in making their very different societes green, As does Europe. Kyoto was written in a way very favorable to certain influential countries (notably Germany) and relatively unfavorable to the US. The entire idea of set carbon targest assigned by nationality penalizes growing large countries like the US to the benefit of compact shrinking countries in Europe, and especially compared to burgeoning economies in Asia, which face no limits at all. The US Senate recognized this and refused to ratify the reaty in 1997. Even tken over by Democrats it would refuse to ratify in 2008, although not perhaps by as large a margin as in 1997 (95-0 against I believe). No, today Kyoto might get as many as 10 or 20 votes - still not enough.

Bronwen Maddox points out the that the US faces different challenges than Europe does, and also that the US enforces it's laws and lives up to the treaties it signs, as opposed to the practice in Europe of signing a treaty and then ignoring it.

This is not necessarily US virtue, more like hard experience. If the US passes a law or ratifies a treaty and then tries to ignore it, activists from the US (and elsewhere) will have it in court very quickly to answer for the negligence, and the court may well decree that the government (or private companies) must comply, right now, no excuses or time for adjustment. So the US government has learned to be careful what it promises to do - it will be held accountable, and the activists and the courts do not care what the economic or social consequences are.

Wed, Sep 10th 2008, 23:19

Oliver Hauss, -, Gold Contributor (112)

Sorry, but the suggestion that the US "enforces its laws and lives up to the treaties it signs" can only be considered a hoax. The US failed even to live up to the UN charter and violates international conventions on a regular basis (just ask the Mexicans about their citizens' rights per the Vienna convention).

Donald Stadler ignores that unlike in many European countries, judges in the US, at least at the lower levels, are critically dependent on campaign funding and votes. On higher levels, they are dependent on political favor. He also ignores that the US judicial system is heavily flawed when it comes to actual matters of scientific fact, which is pertinent for most environmental aspects. Where the key goal in a judicial process is to convince a jury, oratory skills are much more important than sound scientific facts.

As a consequence, the issue of whether environmental laws are being enforced, and how strict they are, varies drastically from state to state and switches at a moment's notice when governments change.

Thu, Sep 11th 2008, 01:18

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Platinum Contributor (643)

"The US failed even to live up to the UN charter "

The portions of the UN Charter which Herr Hauss refers to are covered by a provision in international law which nullifies provisions of treaties which have been repeatedly violated, the so called 'dead letter' provision.

Some Europeans have attempted to revify these dead-letter provisions and apply them retrpoactively to the US. Won't wor; a dead letter is a dead letter.