ODE Watch: A Fistfull of Stupid
The ODE commentary page is filled with some golden nuggets today (each quote from a different piece):
For someone who describes himself as a huge fan of the First Amendment, it seems strange that [Gabe Bradley] would bash those exercising that right, even if he doesnt agree with it.
I’m pretty sure trespassing isn’t covered by the first amendment, champ. Attention-whoring is though, so at least you’re fine on that count.
I dont particularly care for the movie Schindlers List.
This from Gabe Bradley, apparently hoping to replace angry anti-war writers with angry Jewish writers in the ODE’s letters section.
This international criticism is merited. The United States is resisting current and future Kyoto regulations. Chief environmental advisor to the president, James Connaughton has expressed his reluctance to agree to any sort of binding treaty, stating U.S. economic development as the main factor behind his reasoning. This line of reasoning is confusing and disheartening. We acknowledge the severe economic repercussions of reducing U.S. emissions, especially as our nation strives to compete with growing powers that lack tough environmental restrictions, such as China. But shouldnt the president receive environmental advice from someone concerned more about economic factors than global warming?
Uh… yes, he should be very concerned about economic factors. I’m not sure if that the Editorial board worded their piece as they had originally hoped to. Also, it’s incredible that the ODE board complains about the US not agreeing to Kyoto while making no mention of specific problems such as exemptions for India and China.
Of course, I’m forgetting the Emerald‘s fulfillment of mouthpiece duties for Brian Bogart. But Olly’s better at quoting him that I am, anyways.
Whenever I hear or read someone lamenting the United States’ unwillingness to sign the Kyoto Protocol, I remember a great P.J. O’Rourke quote: “United Nation treaties have about as much weight as notes passed in study hall.” (This is from memory mind you). When countries take treaties seriously, the results can be disastrous. DDT bans in developing countries, for example, have contributed to an increase in malarial deaths.
The Protocol calls for industrialized countries to cut their emissions by five percent by 2012. But what about developing countries? Many are signatories to the Protocol, but for the specific reason that it doesn’t ask them to do ANYTHING — this despite the fact that most of these countries have a higher rate of pollution than developed countries. As Ian noted, both India and China, which pollute far more, are exempt. Of course, developing countries cannot afford the $716 billion price tag (this number care of a study conducted at Yale). But who can? Like almost all of these treaties, the benefits do not outweigh the costs. In this case, the costs would outweigh the benefits by a 7-1 ratio. Hurrah! Sign us up!
Once again, the ODE goes for the middle ground.