U.S. booed and heckled at Earth Summit!

Everybody please remember, Bush won't be president forever.

He is also an oil tycoon; do you really expect an environmentalist out of that kind of mindset???

I for one, am an american who would love to see solar/fuel cells developed. It would clean the environment, and help break dependence on oil in general, which is ruining the environment (not to mention we will run out of it soon).

However, with big business and big oil getting a big ear from Bush, that won't happen anytime soon. It really stinks, because america has the potential to take on a real leadership role here.

Just my $0.02

V-03

 

While I think it was a shame that Colin Powell was forced to face the booing, maybe this was the only way some people felt they could protest and make the US administration at least hear them.

 

They said that Colin cried. Dunno if it's true.

 

The rest of the world is mostly populated by green eyed monsters, whom I care for in the smallest regard. They would cut our throats at the merest tilt of the head, figurtivly speaking of course, as shown by the jeers thrust Powell's way.

Ciou-See the Sig

 

He is also an oil tycoon; do you really expect an environmentalist out of that kind of mindset???

Yes, since you don't have any real facts it is best to be like rest of the uninformed and play the label game.

[tarzan] George oil, oil bad, George bad[/tarzan]

GW, although I think he is way to soft, is a conservationist. He loves the outdoors just like I do. He wants smart policy not knee jerk reactions to junk science.

But he should also want us Americans to makes some decisions for ourselves. The whole world can want it one way, I don't care. This is our country and we shall dictate how it is run, not the Greens in South Africa. You global facist out there don't know what your begging for, tyranny like you have never seen.

BTW while they are down there rubbing eachothers back and telling eachother how great they are because they care and GW doesn't. Maybe they can address the child rape crisis that is crippling Africa. Naaaaw, better to boo Colin Powel, its much easier.

EDIT:
I decided I needed to include this. This a link to CNN that talk about the situation in South Africa, the place Nelson Mandella is chastising the US, but has NOT come out against South African dilemas.

CNN.com

 

You know, I just got an idea. Instead of moaning and groaning about Bush amongst ourselves, why don't we actually get together and complain to Bush? Or to Congress? We might actually get something out of it.

 

All I have to say is who cares about earth summit?

 

It's funny, the US isn't environment friendly yet they're one of the better countries when it comes to pollution.

 

It's funny, the US isn't environment friendly yet they're one of the better countries when it comes to pollution.

According to what? It seems pretty polluted to me, as far as industrialized countries go.

EDIT: Thanks for the link, Dan. I hate being right all the time. I live about 100 miles from Detroit.

 

Vaderbait: "It's funny, the US isn't environment friendly yet they're one of the better countries when it comes to pollution."

Admiral_Thrawn60: "According to what? It seems pretty polluted to me, as far as industrialized countries go."

Vaderbait, AT60 is exactly right. Remarkably, with a population nearing 300 million in contrast to a total world population of over 6 billion people, "The United States is accountable for almost a quarter of the world's pollution." (Source can be found here.)

 

obhave: Good points all... but I might reiterate that one can also hunt wild game, and not incur any of the agricultural mass-production-related ecological costs you mentioned.

On the other hand, harvesting plant matter... well, anything beyond small-scale horticulture, requires a lot more effort... In your statistics I saw two problems.

1. The data regarding water consumption is a moot point. The planet isn't going to run out of water any time soon.

2. The data does not compare livestock-related mass production/consumption factors specifically to produce-related mass production/consumption factors.

There's some data in there comparing consumption of hydrocarbons and carbohydrates by livestock vs. the American human population... However, consider the statistical faux pas being encouraged by these numbers:

Without a firm grasp on how to interpret statistics, one might easily overlook the fact that we're talking about a population of animals 25 times greater than the American human population consuming only five times more grain than 275 million humans... So, just how much grain are Americans consuming?

If Americans consumed 10 billion tons of grain, for example, the animals in this ratio, by comparison, would be consuming 50 billion tons of grain.

The difference per capita is staggering:

10 billion/275 million = 36.36 million tons of grain per human

50 billion/7 billion = 7.14 tons of grain per animal

Each American consumes 5.14 million times as much grain per year than each livestock animal in America?using the comparative ratio provided by your statistics. As you said, the grain used to feed 7 billion animals could feed 800 million humans. Which is worse... that we have seven billion animals we're raising for the sake of our own selfishness and gluttony... or that we each consume 5.14 million times as much grain as any one of these animals, out of our own selfishness and gluttony?

Is this not alarming, to say the least?! If the argument is that our direct consumption of produce is far less gluttonous than what's wasted on livestock overproduction... these statistics alone show just how absurdly false that presumption is.

I agree that the main problem is an agricultural economy... but that includes overproduction and overconsumption of produce... which is my primary point.

Get out your bow and arrow... or your gun... and start hunting, or at the very least raising your own free-range chicken on a subsistence farm... and grow plants in your own small horticultural garden without the use of pesticides, fertilizers or other growth enhancing chemical compounds.

What I'm trying to say, essentially, is that I sincerely disagree with the vegetarian notion that eating plants (all else being equal, i.e. acquisition of food through the same agricultural economic channels) is somehow more "environmentally-friendly" than eating animals. This idea is pure rubbish. Under the agricultural paradigm, both are equally wasteful in their own ways.

As a matter of fact, the US EPA estimated that in 1995 the total volume of pesticides used in the United States was 1.224 billion pounds, 939 million of which was used by agricultural production (vs. 133 million for home & garden use). Between 1994 and 1995 those numbers remained unchanged.

Wasting water, wasting grains (which we planted in the first place), is one thing... but what about pesticides and other chemical agents related to produce production? Did this study even bother to compare how many hectares of land are used for crops/produce?

Well, here's your answer, from Major Uses of Land in the United States, 1997, by Marlow Vesterby and Kenneth S. Krupa, Resources Economics Division, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture. Statistical Bulletin No. 973.

Abstract

The United States has a total land area of nearly 2.3 bill

 

Seems that the real source of heckling has been completely ignored.

From The Guardian
"Dissent filled the hall when Mr Powell criticised the government of Zimbabwe for exacerbating the food crisis in that country and pushing "millions of people to the brink of starvation"."


As Stuttaford said: "The Guardian has a report on the heckling of Colin Powell in Johannesburg. It turns out that, amongst other matters, the hecklers were enraged by Powell's criticism of Mugabe and, specifically, the Secretary of State's suggestion that much of the responsibility for Zimbabwe's food crisis lies, in fact, with its dictator. Poor Colin Powell. No one had told him that he was addressing a gathering of fascists."


More from Reason
"For those of us watching the speech in the Summit Media Center, it appeared through the distorted lens of TV as though some of the delegates representing national governments were actually heckling Powell; subsequent checking revealed that the hecklers were ideological environmentalists who had decided in advance they didn't need to hear his speech.

Powell pulled no punches. "The best formula for development is freedom," he declared. Powell turned to the growing famine in South Africa's northern neighbor, Zimbabwe. Drought and economic mismanagement are surely factors in the famine there, but he also pointed out, "The lack of respect for human rights and the rule of law have exacerbated these factors to push millions of people toward the brink of starvation."

Curiously, it was at this point that the activists started hooting and chanting. It is nearly beyond belief that any reasonable person would support the expropriation of farms by Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, a dictator who is in power because he stole the last election; but the activists did just that. Even UN Secretary General Kofi Annan declared, "There can be no lasting solution to the current problems unless the Government of Zimbabwe implements a phased and fully funded land reform program." Annan added that any land reform program should be "run according to the rule of law."

...Immediately after his speech, representatives from several American non-government organizations (NGOs) gathered in the back of the Media Center to offer their instant analysis. Jack Scheer from the Natural Resources Defense Council told reporters, "Secretary Powell's speech makes it clear that the Bush Administration has written off the planet." National Environmental Trust's Phil Clapp, possibly unaware that the boos were from Greenpeace et al, deplored the fact that "no American Secretary of State was ever booed like he was by delegates today.""

 

Darth_Snowdog,

This is the wrong arena for this debate, perhaps a new thread could be started. You may do so if you would like to continue. I do appreciate the civilized manner in which you have presented your points. I must point out that it seems you beleive that the figures quoted for "grassland" or grazing acreage are the primary figures relating to livestock, when in fact, the vast majority of livestock are fed grains. If you don't wish to start a thread, you may PM me with your reply. As far as the quote you produced citing moral grounds, I am sure you are aware I can come up with hundreds of quotes from great figureheads and leaders of our society that refute that ideal in a matter of moments, ranging from Einstein to Mother Teresa.

 

The rest of the world is mostly populated by green eyed monsters, whom I care for in the smallest regard. They would cut our throats at the merest tilt of the head, figurtivly speaking of course, as shown by the jeers thrust Powell's way.

So you think everybody's jalous at America and booed Powell to show their jalousy?

And then some people wonder why they are thought of as Arrogant.

Yeesh.

 

Snowdog's primary statistics were for grain,

As a major in environmental science myself, I thought his post was very well researched. He worked hard on it . .

I think his post belongs here, since we are now talking about a famine that could be avoided. Especially if our overproduction of food could find its way to feed people that need it. But we can't do that because certain dictators don't want it that way.

 

Skywalk272,

Don't worry, Darth_Snowdog and I conversed about the topic thoroughly via PM's. I just didn't want the thread to explode into an Animal welfare or agriculture debate as the topic was centered on the specific event at the Earth Summit. I have no problem discussing it, but I think a seperate thread would be called for.

 

Just for a little "how about them apples", I thought I would just point out to my friend AT60 that while the US is larger per capita, Canada is right up there with the US per capita as well on CO2 pollution. Thank Darth Omega for the info on that one

 

I thought it was very ammusing seeing Colin Powell look so uncomfortable.
------
[image=http://cbg.nohomers.net/images/frames/collector9.jpg]

-Comic Book Guy

 

Thank Darth Omega for the info on that one

Tenor, somehow I don't trust the " "

link

 

Annoyed is a better word.

That's fine. If those that dislike want to piss Powell off, that's great. He's their best friend in DC, and the biggest multilateralist in the administration. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophesy.

So, no reaction to the details that have emerged, which show that the majority of the jeers and dissension came from the US objecting to Mugabe's Pol Pot tactics in Zimbabwe? Or that the hecklers were NGO people, not representatives from other countries? No, that would force people to change their pre-conceived notions, on *both* sides of the debate.

 

thought I would just point out to my friend AT60 that while the US is larger per capita, Canada is right up there with the US per capita as well on CO2 pollution.

I'm not disputing that. But, because of Canada's sparse population, we can get away with stuff like that.

 

AT60 is right. Most of Canada's pollution is simply Zamboni related.

 

seven

That kind of on topic post will not be tolerated

Yeah it's stupid that people jumped on the bandwagon before they even knew what it was about.

"why are we booing?"
"I dunno but it's against the US so it has to be good right?"

AT60 That shouldn't matter in heart of this. It's about standards and methods of pollution. Japan or China pollutes more than Canada but their per capita is far lower. This whole nation scolding is ridiculous for the most part. It shouldn't matter how much total, it's how efficent with the pollutants you release. With many countries standards, if they were to industrially produce what we did, they would create far more pollution than we do. And it does matter because if we adapt Kyoto standards, costs go up and the industry ships overseas with even lower standards than the US has. Then you're in even worse trouble.

 

Just for a little "how about them apples", I thought I would just point out to my friend AT60 that while the US is larger per capita, Canada is right up there with the US per capita as well on CO2 pollution. Thank Darth Omega for the info on that one.

tenorjedi, to be blunt, your argument is tenuous to say the least. Here are the facts according to your source.

1) Per Capita CO2 Emissions: (Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide)

Canada 15
United States 20

N.B.: This is a 25% difference; thus, it is noteworthy.

2) TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS OF BOTH COUNTRIES (per annum ? according to 1995 estimates, metric tons)

Canada 435,749
United States 5,468,564

3) Cumulative Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 1950-95: (Billion Metric Tons of CO2)

Canada 20
United States 200

4) The all-important carbon sinks:

Canadian ?carbon sinks? are far more impressive than those found in the United States; thus, we eliminate much of the CO2 emissions that we create (and then some).

5) Our government is committed to ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and to meeting its demanded targets, which is more than I can say for your government at this time.

Edit: This whole nation scolding is ridiculous for the most part.

tenorjedi, each and every nation is ACCOUNTABLE for their actions (lifestyle). I don't know if you realize this or not, but pollution (especially CO2 emissions) affect everyone on the planet; thus, this is why it is absolutely essential that all nations work together and carry on a working dialogue to solve massive problems like The Greenhous Effect\Global Warming.

And it does matter because if we adapt Kyoto standards, costs go up and the industry ships overseas with even lower standards than the US has. Then you're in even worse trouble.

tenorjedi, nobody said this was going to easy. That is why we have to start making sacrifices now to correct the damage that has been done to the environment, so that both yours (if you plan on having them) and my children can grow up in a better world and not have to deal with our mistakes (and our parents').

 

25% is pretty big, but again industry plays a huge part. When you break it all down things really are comparable. Going even further industry to industry our production methods aren't anymore pollutant than those chastising us. It's just that we do more of it. And again, if the US doesn't do it, someone else will fill the void, and quite possibly with lower standards. I'm not saying it's perfect but to try and force restrictions that hurt an already weak economy, you must be joking.
The carbon sinks is just an excuse and isn't a valid point. If pollution is the worlds problem then how can pollution filters belong to a single country?

Again several countries have talked big, but once they weigh the effects of Kyoto many nations will do what Japan did and decide against it. Keep in mind I think Japan does a terrific job with their conservation efforts.

The only thing I liked about Kyoto is the stressing of alternative fuels.