Liberal College Kid

What a crazy year! Of course, I will especially remember 2007 for many reasons. One of which is certainly that LCK started in March of 2007. Rather than go through all of the stories we’ve posted on here, though, I thought I would go through the biggies whether or not anything about them appeared on our site.

* Where better to start than with the Presidential Election that seemed to kick off way too early?

This picture is great because it really shows that despite all of the added time this race has gotten it really hasn’t made that much difference. Well, maybe except in the case of Huckabee who inextricably is moving up the charts in the hearts and minds of Republicans. Other wise, though, the 08 race is exactly where it was at the start of 2007. Despite my best attempts, Kucinich is still waffling on the bottom of the heap and the Obama vs. Clinton match up that everyone was calling in January seems to be exactly what’s on the horizon.

* February was a great month in the news because of one person, Lisa Nowak. To be honest, I felt kind of bad for her. The story as I first heard it seemed like a love story of sorts, two astronauts who fell in love at zero gravity. How romantic right? That is, until it came out that she wore the adult diapers astronauts wear in space on her drive from Texas to Florida to stalk her man.  Nothing says I love you like a soiled diaper…

<Hottie!>

* Then of course is my pick for person of the year: Larry Seidlin. The infamous judge of the Anna Nicole Smith trial, who told stories of his days as a tennis player, his relationships in the past, orange juice, his college days… Words fail me, so here is a good highlight reel of the madness that was the Anna Nicole case:

* The story that perhaps most rocked college students this year was the Virginia Tech tragedy where Cho Seung Hui killed 32 of his peers and then killed himself. The way he went about it, however, is perhaps the most distressing. He sent his own press kit to NBC, depicting him with guns, in camouflage and many other violent and frightening images. The political fall out around this issue is of course unfortunate, with some on the right claiming that had other students been allowed to have guns on campus this killer would not have claimed so many victims. I don’t understand this logic at all, but, in 2007 everything whether it was political in origin or not, became political.

* On August 1st a suspension bridge spanning the Mississippi River in Minnesota collapsed and killed 13 people. This tragedy came with some baggage though. Minnesota and the Twin City area in particular had just approved a tax payer funded new home for the Minnesota Twins. Money was going to building a new baseball stadium rather investing in infrastructure. Of course, immediately after this reports came out that perhaps as many as 3 in 4 bridges in America were not structurally sufficient which led me to one question: why can’t we be building bridges here and not just in Iraq?

* In August, Larry Craig made us all reconsider our public restroom behavior. There were two truly horrible things about this event. The first was how Craig handled the whole thing. He has been and continues to be a bigot actively campaigning against gay rights. And second, who wants to have sex in an airport bathroom? It’s hard enough to bring yourself to just use the facilities in an airport bathroom, you know? Despite all of this, he is staying in office… Good luck with your reelection Larry.

* The evil genius, the architect, Bush’s brain… Call him what you will 2007 saw the end of the great Bush & Rove partnership. Despite him being wrong, in my opinion, on virtually every political front, I will certainly give Karl his props here. He got an idiot elected Governor and then President, then convinced the entire nation that his party would be better for them because of “morals” and “values” which should have been read “profit margin” and “tax break.” Rove may be one of the most brilliant men to ever work in the White House, and he was never elected nor approved. Nonetheless, he was a terrible dancer and rapper. And Karl, for me you will always be MC Rove!

* Our boy Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize! How sweet is that? He won it, of course, for his work with An Inconvenient Truth and shared the award with the UN group responsible for coming out with the report on global climate change.  Gore has taken the issue beyond a partisan debate to make it a sticking point on both sides of the asile and he has now accomplished something very few Americans have: he is a Nobel Peace Prize winner.  You go Gore!

* And then finally and tragically 2007 ended in catastrophe in Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto was assassinated less than a month from the first formal election since 1999.  She was campaigning for that race when she was killed.  She had been living abroad for the last 8 years after General / President Musharraf seized control of the government in a military coup.  The two had reached an amnesty agreement and had agreed to restore democracy to the country.  Now, however, while the election appears to still be coming on January 8th questions still surround the assasination.  Of course Al- Qaeda is claiming it and there are numerous reports of their pressence in Pakistan.  However, Musharraf has had nothing but support from the US since he seized power and while Bush has condemned the act as cowardly it still bodes well for our strong military alliance in Pakistan as we continue the War of Terror.  Sorry, War on Terror.

Well folks, there it is!  2007 was our first year at LCK and while it had its ups and downs we hope that you will continue to read us from time to time, post some comments about how we’re too young to understand anything, and get into great debates about a Dennis Kucinich  Ron Paul campaign.  Cheers and Happy New Year!

• Leave a comment... (3)

I hear it over and over again, from political rallies to neighborhood bbq’s, “I just can’t support Hillary Clinton.”  This is customarily followed up by someone who is now instantly supporting her who makes the case for, “What’s not to like?  She was for universal health care in ‘94?”   And thus the divide is created and the several liberals convened have something to debate.  This is troubling to me, and I’m worried the Democrats aren’t worried enough about what’s happening in the party.

<! Kind of looks like a Fight Night poster!>

I want to first put in my own thoughts about Hillary.  First the positives, she has a long history of supporting progressive measures; most notably, her support for universal health care in the 90’s.  Since this time she has continued to support gay rights, a woman’s right to choose, stem cell research, combatting global warming, universal pre-K education, and a whole host of other domestic issues close to the hearts of Democrats.  In short, there is a reason she has been elected as Senator from New York twice, and it’s not just on name recognition.  I have jokingly said of Hillary that while she may not have the right stance now, once the majority of the party views things a certain way she will adapt her position to reflect that of the party.  The more I think about this statement, however, the more I think I’m being absolutly serious.

Hillary’s support for the war is one that is personally troubling for me.  That said, I honestly feel as though she has no choice in the matter and had to respond the way she did.  Here’s why:  Hillary is a woman playing in a man’s game.  She needs to everything in her power to not come off as weak or feminine, and there’s nothing more nurturing or motherly than not wanting Americans to die in a phony war, right?  Regardless of where she was personally on the matter, she had to vote the way she did on the war because of the political reality in this country facing women.  Namely, in order to play with the boys, Hillary had to support the boy’s war.  She is also responding to the fact that the Democrats are perceived as being more lax on terrorism than the Republicans, something I truly don’t understand.  Having a city attacked while someone was mayor does not make them an expert on terror.  Especially when more lives were lost to rescue workers working in horrendous conditions at ground zero then were lost in the actual attacks from the planes.  Oh, and the fact that Giuliani spent more time at Yankee stadium in September 2001 after 9/11 then he did at ground zero.  I’ll buy that he’s a Yankee expert, no question.

However,  the media and it’s right wing message paint Giuliani, Bush, and the Republican idiots running this country as if they were the foremost experts on terror.  Even though the average 20 year old history major could tell you more about the Middle East than the Decider could, this is the reality we live in.  Because of this, Hillary must come out as strong against terror to the point that she’s a downright hawk! As unfortunate as this is, it truly may be what is best for her campaign, only time will tell.

Many Democrats also feel as though the race is over, that Hillary is already going to get the nomination and that the other candidates are just wasting their time.  This brings me to my only fear about a Hillary canidacy: she’s worth voting against.  The religious right in this country, especially the evangelicals don’t have a clear candidate.  To be frank, no one on the Republican side comes close to the crazy required of him to get real support from evangelical voters.  You have to say stuff like, “God wants me to be President.”  However, if there’s one thing the religious right hates more than Roe v Wade its the Clinton’s and their adulterous liberal ways.  All jokes aside, I do think the Republicans could mobilize to the point that they aren’t voting for someone, as much as they are voting against Hillary.  In this regard, I think she’s the only candidate for the Dems that this is the case.  Is this enough to not give her the nomination?  I don’t know.

We often forget just how progressive Hillary is, because she tries not to show it.  She also comes off as not having a guiding philosophy.  By this I mean something like Hope from Barack Obama, Peace from Dennis Kucinich, the transformative power of the American Dream from Edwards.  However, I will make the case that Hillary does have a guiding philosophy that she can’t talk about because of the political consequences.  That philosophy is this:  what should she do as a woman?  Hillary has taken a progressive stance on nearly every social issue, why?  Because she has a deep ceded belief in human rights, civil rights, and the ability for government to make the lives of the people it represents better.  She is a politician to her core, but I do see a universal theme to her, something I didn’t see from Kerry in 2004 and something Gore kept hidden (Global Warming) in 2000.  There’s more to Hillary than many of us think, and more toughness than I think any of us will ever know.  And so my fellow liberal America bashers (wink at Bill O), take a long hard look at the issues and then decide just how anti-Hillary you are.  I think most will find, as I have, that she may just be the right person for the job, and the time has long passed that our nation’s highest office should be run by a woman.

• Leave a comment... (2)

This political cartoon is a great representation of the ridiculous effort in America’s public schools to Un-separate church and state…to move hundreds of years backwards in our efforts to create a free democracy. This country was founded on the idea of religious freedom, but lately it seems that “the powers that be” are trying to make us forget that.

The teaching of the Theory of Evolution in public schools is a debate that should not even be a debate. There is no scientific debate that Evolution by Natural Selection and that changes in allele frequencies over generations of a population are the causes of speciation, including the divergence of our own species. Let me reiterate, because this concept can apparently be misleading…THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC DEBATE. Research done in fields of science is guided by evolution…Genetics, Conservation Biology, Ecology, Pharmaceuticals, etc, etc. There seems to be confusion about the fact that a Scientific Theory is not just someone’s WILD GUESS. . .

This is a great explanation of the true definition, which is NOT what most high schoolers are taught when they learn about Evolution in their schools (if they do at all)…

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity’s effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.
Here’s a video excerpt that, ridiculous as it is, did not shock me that much, knowing the statistics of how many citizens of this country do not “believe” in evolution, even though it’s not a belief system to begin with, but rather a testable, working Scientific Theory.

Humans’ impact on environment is reaching its tipping point, and if the same politicians that claim to want to work for alternative fuel and new scientific innovation that will allow us to continue our society through major environmental change simultaneously say that they don’t “believe” in evolution then there’s no hope for our future….If they don’t recognize one of the most applicable scientific ideas of all time, how can they even think that they will be able to have an impact on the future of science? Or a better question, how can the citizens that are voting for these guys think that they aren’t utterly and completely full of …it?

WHO doesn’t Believe in Evolution? - GOP Debate show of hands….

Tancredo, Huckabee, Brownback…..Link to Tonight’s debate picture:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/03/who-doesnt-believe-in-evolution/

Because: That’s why they don’t believe in evolution - their leadership becomes less fit over time…..

ev_cartoon2.gif

• Leave a comment... (13)

Call what follows a naive and idealistic suggestion if you like but I think it’s worth some consideration. Paris launched a program this past weekend which could translate well to some cities on this side of the Atlantic. The program is called Vélib (an amalgamation of the words vélo [bike] and liberté [freedom]) and gives both locals and tourists alike a different way of getting around in the city of lights. I won’t take too much time describing how the program works; both the New York Times and Charles Bremner do a great job of that on their own. Suffice it to say that after buying a reasonable priced pass for a given length of time (a day, five days, a month) you’re able to pick up a rental bike at a station and ride it for “almost free” (it’s free providing that you return it in half an hour and seeing as how the stations will be no more than 300 yards apart from each other when the project is completed, that shouldn’t be much of a problem) all over the city.

The cost of the program is being deferred through the sponsorship of a French advertising company that gets advertising rights on all city owned billboards in return for paying for the program. This program is almost perfectly suited for Paris; the wide, Haussmann built boulevards, the exorbitant taxi rates, the millions upon millions of tourists that pour into the city every year, the beauty of the city which is missed when riding on the Metro, all of these factors make the Vélib program ideal for the French capital. This program, however, is one that should be considered in U.S. cities as well.

Cities such as New York, Boston, Chicago, Miami, San Diego and others could use a program such as this one to both decrease traffic congestion and help the environment at the same time. Granted winters in the northeast and August in the Deep South may cause a slump in ridership but if cities can get large, private sector, contributions to pay for the program why not go for it? It could be used to draw tourists to cities by promising them freedom and independence from rental cars and mass transit systems. It would promote the exploration of the city as a whole rather than just the main tourist attractions. For those that live in the city it would provide residents with a cheap and easy alternative to trying to find a parking space when going to a restaurant or movie.

Obviously cities like LA, Phoenix and Houston- where sprawl is so great as to necessitate a car- and San Francisco- where insurance issues would arise with thousands of tourists careening down Nob Hill- might not be well suited for a bike rental program but that shouldn’t stop other cities from trying it out. Why not encourage a little exercise for a population which desperately needs it? Why not empower people by letting them make a tangible contribution to the environment by trading in a day or two of driving per week with biking? Why not, if you can find a private backer for the program, (which I believe could be done through a variety of methods) go for it? I realize my optimism and enthusiasm for a bike rental program is probably making some of you a little queasy at this point so go ahead and bring me down off the cloud I’m currently perched upon. Explain why a program such as this one wouldn’t work in the U.S., as Darrell Hammond says while doing a great O’Reilly- “tell me where I’m wrong”

• Leave a comment... (1)

Presidential prospect John Edwards is on a mission this presidential season. He wants to end poverty in America. In my mind, Edwards is making poverty an issue the way Al Gore has become the champion of combating global climate change. Edwards’ website states:

End Poverty by 2036: John Edwards believes that ending poverty should be a goal our nation actively pursues. A national goal will rally support for the cause and help us measure our progress. In 1999, Tony Blair announced a 20-year goal to end child poverty in Great Britain and he has already reduced child poverty by 17 percent [Washington Post, 4/3/2006]. Edwards calls for a national effort to:
Cut poverty by one third within a decade, lifting 12 million Americans out of poverty by 2016.
End poverty within 30 years, lifting 37 million Americans out of poverty by 2036.

Currently the former Senator from North Carolina is in third place for the Democratic race trailing Obama and Clinton. The cool news though, is that should Edwards win the nomination, he would still beat any of the Republican challengers! The Edwards campaign has not done a good job of being able to really break out of the third place trap they’ve been in seemingly since people started announcing their intention to run.

Should Edwards not win the nomination, or the Vice Presidential nomination (I’m hoping for Bill Richardson as VP) he may be able to transcend the political spectrum to make poverty a values issue rather than a political one. Much like global warming, it’s hard to imagine that Republicans could really say that they are pro-poverty, which could make Edwards’ plans realistic regardless of who is in the white house. Then again, this is the party who has leaders who don’t believe in evolution… Wake up Walmart suporter = AWESOME!

Maybe one of these fights with Ann Coulter will push Edwards out in front of Obama or Hillary. Regardless, Edwards has made poverty the central issue of his campaign, and I fully believe it will become a central issue in America for the future regardless of who the next President is. You can read more about Edwards and his plan to end poverty in America at http://johnedwards.com/issues/poverty/

• Leave a comment... (9)

I had been waiting to post about Live Earth until it actually happens (7/7/07 or this Saturday) however, I thought it’d do more good to put the link to the Live Earth Pledge up here. The pledge is:

1.To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution by 90% in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;
2.To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by reducing my own CO2 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become “carbon neutral;”
3.To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the CO2;
4.To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation;
5.To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;
6.To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests; and,
7.To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crisis and building a sustainable, just, and prosperous world for the 21st century.”

More Live Earth stuff to come…

• Leave a comment... (9)

The Republicans in the Senate yesterday acted like the heartless, self serving bunch of rich white guys they are and blocked:

a $32 billion package of tax breaks for renewable energy that would have been financed mostly by new taxes on major oil companies.

The bill would have been the first real effort by the federal government to make some serious effort to reduce our use of oil and combat global climate change. Even though the Republicans running for President, with virtually no exceptions, have said that we do need to take steps to reduce our use of foreign oil. They don’t want to admit to believing in global warming (because SCIENCE IS SCARY!!!!!!) but with Giuliani’s rhetoric the right has been able to turn global warming into a national security issue. The logic being that we need to reduce our use of non-renewable fossil fuels not because of it’s impact on global climate change but because of who we get those fuels from. I guess I’m ok with that, but the Senate Republicans have completely missed this point.

Junior moronic senator from Arizona, Jon Kyl, said on the bill:

“When you put a tax on a business it gets passed on to consumers. Instead of reducing gasoline prices, this bill is going to add to the cost of gasoline.”

Wake up! This bill was supposed to reduce our use of gasoline. If we don’t take any steps to force oil companies to start seriously developing renewable sources of energy we’ll be left in the dark (literally) as the rest of the industrial world passes us by with new technologies. We have to make energy companies change the way they’re doing business and the way the federal government regulates that is taxing. Of course, for Republicans who have big oil lobbyists breathing down their necks we should never expect them to do the right thing or act like they care about the will of those they represent.

< The apparent goal of Senate Republicans…

Walk your talk flip floppers! If your party is serious about curbing the effects of global climate change do something about it. Or the right wing safe version: end our reliance on foreign oil from countries that are a “national security threat.” Gas prices are not going down because the amount of oil is going down. We need to stop thinking minutely about what gas will cost tomorrow or next week and start thinking about what will happen if we don’t change the way we power our lives.

The Dems were just three votes shy of forcing the issue that could have made this law. $32 billion in funding for renewable energy… And the Senate Republicans are too hamstrung by their big oil financiers. Shame on you Jon Kyl and friends, and thanks for doing your part to ruin the country.

• Leave a comment... (0)

I learned two things this morning. The first is that the name of one of the hosts on NPR’s “Morning Edition” is Steve Inskeep and not, as I had always thought Steve Inskee- who knows, maybe the “P” is silent but I swear I’ve never heard it before. The other thing I learned is that, while there is “no doubt that a trend of global warming exists” we don’t need to worry about it. Well hooray for us, that’s a load off of my mind! It sure is good to know that NASA’s top official doesn’t think that global warming is a problem, even though he acknowledges it is occurring. On the aforementioned Morning Edition, Griffin said about global warming “I am not sure that it is fair to say this is a problem we must wrestle with” and went on to say that “to assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change”. Right… so I guess intact polar ice caps and a lack of pollution (including, interestingly enough, coke and pot) in the atmosphere aren’t part of our “optimal client”.

I haven’t done a lot of research on Michael Griffin but I’m assuming (and I realize that with the Bush administration this is taking a HUGE leap of faith) that his previous position wasn’t one which included judging horse shows. The man holds six degrees (okay so I’ve done a little research on the guy), how can anyone with six degrees not think that global worming should be stopped? Is it possible that after you get degree number four any further education dumbs you down? That appears to me to be the only possible explanation because to admit global warming exists and then to say that it’s not a problem feels like a contradiction in terms to me.

At this point I think it’s safe to say that the Bush administration has completely given up on trying to be either A) coherent or B) an asset to the Republican Party in the 2008 elections. Bush has now decided he will save Darfur on his own (something I’m pretty sure Republican’s are against) and he’s also decided to overhaul his environmental policy, and is now floating a few test balloons to see what the country would think if he decided that September is a little too soon to decide if the “surge” is working (probably because he realizes that the “surge” will never work so he figures he can just keep stalling until he’s out of office). I swear I half expect him to call a news conference and emerge with nothing on but and American flag thong to announce his new initiative to declare Crawford, Texas the new capital of the United States. Seriously, I half expect that to happen, that’s how much he’s given up on trying to appear like he knows what he’s doing. It’s almost like Karl Rove fills out policy mad libs every day and then tells Bush what to do based on that alone. I’m pretty sure next week Bush is going to: Buy Canada while wearing a tunic and listening to Peter Frampton’s Greatest Hits. He will then appoint Michael Emerson as Ambassador to Your Mom and watch Silver Spoons for three hours.

In the end though, I guess after the Democrats bent over and grabbed their ankles with the Iraq spending bill last week the Bush administration (and consequently anyone connected to it) realized that they can pretty much do whatever they want and get away with it. Great, good thing everyone went out and voted for a change in 2006, looks like it’s really paying off.

• Leave a comment... (3)

Arizona State University’s Executive Vice President and Provost, Elizabeth D. Capaldi, sent out ASU’s new energy conservation program. Here are her words:

“The State of Arizona, in Arizona Revised Statute 34-451, has mandated conservation. All Arizona universities must reduce energy use in public buildings by “ten percent per square foot of floor area on or before July 1, 2008 and by fifteen percent per square foot of floor area on or before July 1, 2011” from fiscal year 2002 levels.

ASU has also made a major educational and research commitment to advancing the principles of sustainability. Reducing energy consumption not only has benefits to ASU’s fiscal bottom line, it illustrates to our students, staff and community that we “practice what we preach” and take balanced environmental stewardship seriously.

These combined factors require us to undertake a major conservation effort. We are writing this letter to enlist your support in implementing the following actions university-wide:

* Set point temperatures will be adjusted to 78 in the summer and 68 in the winter. While this may result in some minor discomfort, each degree of temperature saves approximately $150,000 – $200,000. In those areas where there are individual temperature controls, we ask that you set them at least two degrees higher in the summer and lower in winter.
* Completely turn off computers and peripheral equipment at the end of the day (see http://www.asu.edu/it/fyi/energy <http://www.asu.edu/it/fyi/energy> ). Make sure all unnecessary equipment and lights are off when closing the office.
* Turn off lights when out of the office for more than 15 minutes. Turn off other devices, such as task lights, calculators, printers, radios, and fans after use.
* Turn off lights in unused areas such as conference rooms, kitchens, sports and event facilities, and playing fields, when not in use. Reduce lighting in common areas.
* Close building doors and windows.
* Discourage the addition of small, low efficiency appliances, such as refrigerators and heaters. Discourage decorative and advertising lighting.

* Buy “Energy Star®” compliant equipment.

Room temperatures in research laboratories and animal care facilities will be adjusted according to the research needs and animal safety requirements defined by the various research departments. Communications between the utilities management team and the various research areas will be continuous and will support optimal research environments.”

ASU is the first university to offer a degree in sustainability and adopting policies like this will continue to put the Sun Devils ahead of the curve in higher education when it comes to combating global warming.  Well done ASU!

• Leave a comment... (0)

China may surpass the US as the world’s largest contributor of greenhouse gases within the next year or two. I am not outraged by this. The population of China is more than four times that of the United States. They SHOULD contribute more than the US. It just makes mathematical sense. And we aren’t talking per capita here. Straight up, tons of gases emitted. Instead of focusing on the fact that China will be producing more greenhouse gases overall than the United States, the people of the US should try to figure out how they can get down to a per capita that is equal to that of China (or even Germany).

I am sick of anti-environmental groups saying that it is unfair that developing nations do not have to meet the same stringent requirements of wealthier nations (one reason the US refuses to sign the Kyoto Protocol). Guess how we got wealthy - by doing a shit-ton of harm to the environment. I would love it if all these up-and-coming countries could afford to use renewable energy to build up their industries. But the sad fact is that currently, clean energy is expensive energy. That is why the wealthier nations need to take the initiative to make up for the other nations’ need to use fossil fuels. Or, since many of these developing nations don’t have the reliance on fossil fuels ingrained in their societies yet, wealthier nations should help them get off on the right foot by financially supporting the infrastructure for cleaner energy.

Clean Development Mechanism is a program that is designed to do exactly this. Wealthier areas like Japan and Europe are able to buy credits to offset their carbon emissions and this money is then used to develop cleaner energy production in poorer areas. This program is still a bit flawed. China received about 60% of the money, despite contributing only 40% of the fossil fuels from the developing world (NY Times). Honestly, this difference doesn’t bother me too much right now; at least the money is being used for cleaner energy somewhere. And obviously, buying credits isn’t as good as ACTUALLY reducing emissions, but it is still several steps ahead of where the US stands.

Programs like this are the only way that developing nations have a chance of catching up to the wealthier nations without using massive amounts of fossil fuels. The Clean Development Mechanism should be ideal for the American mindset: Can’t someone else do it? We don’t have to build unsightly wind turbines on our turf; we can pay other people to do it! And unless we are willing to help them build clean energy, we don’t have the right to tell them not to use fossil fuels. We did.

• Leave a comment... (0)