"the loss of US soverenty to the UN" Playing the red, white and blue card I see. Nice editorializing with your opinion. To hold the US accountable to the world only makes sense that since, even with less than 7% of the world's population, we consume the largest percentage of resources and produce the most pollution. A more accurate statement is that the US is trying to (and succeeding ) dictate environmental policy for the world via globilization in the name of the market. If you call answering for our blatant environmental abuses a loss of sovereignty, so be it. I call it moral responsibility.
I see. I just told you that several countries, and I named two of them, are still pumping HFC's into the ozone layer, and that the US stopped doing this. You cleverly
ignored everything I posted.
I know that the left wants to give US sovereignty over to the UN because that is the ONLY way they can achieve the ends they seek. Ends that you made clear in the above quote. This means changing the very nature of our country, and the lifestyles we currently enjoy.
Since we are the biggest contributor to the ozone layer's depletion, we should also take the lead and (being that we're the quintessential superpower) be the first to take the necessary steps to reverse the trend.
Environment scientists, often the least scientific and most often debated by their peers (due mostly to their guesswork vs hard science) said that the HFC problem was the preeminent threat to the ozone layer. We have stopped the production AND the atmospheric venting of these chemicals, which makes the above idea, "we are the biggest contributor to the ozone layer's depletion" an incorrect statement.
Let's suspend reality for a moment and agree that this is the answer. How then would you propose that this be accomplished?
I can only think of one way. What's yours?
uhm, you quoted me....remember what you pasted? my previous post?
The question, to clarify, is this: " How then would you propose that this be accomplished?" Not "what should be done", but "how would you do it?"
I'll wait here.
Meanwhile, the only way I see to do this is to
lower the standard of living in the US, by means of the aforementioned loss of US sovereignty to the UN and the redistribution of income by replacing our current system with a European style socialist system.
So, while it is a nice thought that some of this would be remedied by raising the standard of living in the counties that produce these imported goods, and somehow imposing a US level of environmental controls on those countries, I don't see a way in which you could accomplish this goal other than the way I just suggested: effectively
lowering the standard of living in the US so that it became profitable to manufacture the goods here as efficiently as they are in China, and with a similar cost.
In this new socialist structure, wages would be limited for a more "fair" distribution of wealth, perhaps the level of income of a regional pilot in a crash pad. Then WE could become major exporters, unable to afford the SUV's we would build for Russia, where they would have none of this nonsense, since they have been down the road of long lines for shoes before.
There it is, we need to comply with something to this effect. I hope you weren't resorting to the cheap debate tactic of asking for every excrucitaing detail for distraction's sake.
Not at all. I am pointing out that this idea has no means of execution, as if we were talking about exploring Europa, and had no means to do so. At that point, we are just talking.
My idea is an absurd one, at best. I give it to you to make a point, being that there is no way to raise the standard of living in other countries, nor a manner by which we can impose the same regulations that limit production of goods here in the US, not without changing who we are as a people and an economy. Could we refuse to purchase these goods? Perhaps. What would happen then? First, all of the WalMArt stores would declare banckruptcy, all of the workers would be unemployed, and large amounts of debt to US companies with which WalMArt does business would be forgiven. The result: economic chaos. That wouldn't solve the problem, however. Now, the workers in the foreign production lines would be out of work, too.
Man, this is getting worse and worse. It doesn't sound that this would raise anyone's standard of living, either.
If you really want to live an environmentally pure life, you should probably be living with the Old Order Amish. But be warned: scientists have said that bovine flatulence is a major cause of ozone layer depletion.
