US Rebuffs Kyoto, Becomes World Leader in Green

[mugaliens]

The United States, which rejected the Kyoto agreement, has never adopted a federal system of controls for carbon-dioxide emissions, although California has binding targets to cut CO2 emissions and other states are expected to follow.

The United States, however, has emerged as the world leader in developing clean energy technologies.

It involves a wide range of sectors, including wind, solar, biofuels, biomass (organic material to produce power and heat), energy efficiency technology, hydrogen and fuel cells, and tidal power.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/08/20/business.of.green.ap/index.html)

Your thoughts?

[Disinfo Agent]

Wasn't the US already the "world leader in developing clean energy technologies" prior to the Kyoto debacle? Too bad they're not put to use.

And then I read this:

The United States, Europe and Japan are locked in a frantic race to cash in on the exploding business of saving the planet. I'm sorry, but I am unable to take that article seriously. :rolleyes:

[DyerWolf]

DI

-- Why? According to the selfishness principle, the best way to "save the planet" is to make "green" technology popular, whether it is cost-effective (or even effective) or not - which ensures folks will spend money on it. Where there's money to be made, someone will sell "green" products to "green" consumers who can pat themselves on the back "for doing their part."

The problem I have is that you can't buy some "green" products (cars) in some states. (LINK (http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4024974&GT1=10365))


You can't actually buy this ultra-green Accord, or the four-cylinder version that also produces near-zero pollution. That is, unless you live in California, New York or six other northeast states that follow California's tougher pollution rules. Only there can you buy this Accord, or the roughly two dozen other models that meet so-called Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle standards, PZEV for short. ...

Not only can't you buy one, but the government says it's currently illegal for automakers to sell these green cars outside of the special states. Under terms of the Clean Air Act—in the kind of delicious irony only our government can pull off—anyone (dealer, consumer, automaker) involved in an out-of-bounds PZEV sale could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500. ...


I remember reading (during the 80's, after the last gas crunch, Iran-Iraq war and other destabilizing mid-east / OPEC shennanigans) that "green" tech didn't make sense unless and until oil prices exceeded 18-23 dollars per barrel. The same is probably true today - which is one good thing that's coming out of the current high prices; significant investment in alternative fuels, solar, nuclear, wind, wave and other types of power.

Altruism rarely motivates. Greed certainly does.

The trick is to make being responsible in someone's self interest! - ala, the popularity of "green."






* (In case you didn't get enough quotemarks above, here's a few more "" " ' " "" " "")

[Disinfo Agent]

I personally don't believe that every problem can be solved through selfishness. Clinging on to such hope seems counterproductive to me.

[DyerWolf]

Agreed (http://www.altruists.org/ideas/economics/behavioral/)

[Disinfo Agent]

Very interesting. There was a thread in the forum about game theory a while ago. Here it is. (http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/63063-travellers-dilemma.html)

[Larry Jacks]

I personally don't believe that every problem can be solved through selfishness. Clinging on to such hope seems counterproductive to me.

I feel the same about government - few problems are so bad that government can't (and usually won't) make them worse. Clinging to such hope seems very counterproductive to me. Market based solutions are far more likely to be successful in the long run. If someone profits from making a better solution to a problem, then that's even better.

[Disinfo Agent]

The goverment gives you sovereignty and democracy. Nothing else would. And, since you trust the market so much, the government also gives you property and market regulation (there are no markets without rules).

[Larry Jacks]

the government also gives you property and markets.

The government does not give property (except in the old land rush days of the 1800s). Instead, they're supposed to protect property rights. However, in the US, the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo that a government can effectively take private property belonging to one person and give it to someone else so long as the government believes the second party will make more profitable use of the land (meaning putting the land to a use that will generate greater tax revenues.)

Likewise, the government does not give us markets. It establishes the laws and conditions for the market to exist. However, virtually every government interferes with the market to greater or lessor degrees. For example, governments often grant subsidizies to favored individuals or companies to artifically give them an advantage (e.g. farm subsidizies) and taxes things they don't like such as cigarettes.

Government may be a necessary evil but it is evil none the less.

[mike alexander]

This thing keeps turning up like athlete's foot in a dirty locker room.

Can we refrain from labelling everything we don't like 'evil'? At least here?

[Paracelsus]

I remember a short news item in Scientific American recently that compared trends in energy efficiency with trends in energy use. The study found that, while buildings and appliances have grown more energy efficient, energy use has actually increased over that same period.

[Paracelsus]

This thing keeps turning up like athlete's foot in a dirty locker room.

Can we refrain from labelling everything we don't like 'evil'? At least here?

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

I hate that phrase 'necessary evil' anyway.

[Doodler]

I personally don't believe that every problem can be solved through selfishness. Clinging on to such hope seems counterproductive to me.

Selfishness works every time. Remind anyone that its in their own best interests, and you motivate them.

Altruism has a really crap record for reliable performance. It tends to come in bursts, and has a REAL bad habit of waiting till the last possible minute.

Instant gratification has the benefit of actually being instant. Make the benefits immediately worthwhile, and you get things done. Trying to pander to the angels of better nature causes needless delays until the people in a position to make things happen finally come around.

[CodeSlinger]

Exactly. I really can't think of anything that motivates better, and more consistently, than appealing to self-interest. Of course, convincing people that something really is in their interest is not exactly trivial.

[Doodler]

Exactly. I really can't think of anything that motivates better, and more consistently, than appealing to self-interest. Of course, convincing people that something really is in their interest is not exactly trivial.

Most of the time you can bypass that with a little reverse bribery, otherwise known as the "tax credit".

[galacsi]

Exactly. I really can't think of anything that motivates better, and more consistently, than appealing to self-interest. Of course, convincing people that something really is in their interest is not exactly trivial.

Yes , and if their best interest is to wreck the world ? Why not ? After all wars and ecological catastrophes can be profitable ?

If Amazonia is deforested it is because some people make big profits doing it .

If new energy technologies are developed it is because the oil price is too high not because companies have an interest in saving the World.So yes it can be self interest but an indirect one. Sometimes it work against environment , sometimes it works for it.

So i agree with DISINFO AGENT , we need regulation and control from a democratic political entity , ie an elected Government.

[Disinfo Agent]

Most of the time you can bypass that with a little reverse bribery, otherwise known as the "tax credit".I thought you guys wanted to leave the government out of the equation... :)

[Doodler]

So i agree with DISINFO AGENT , we need regulation and control from a democratic political entity , ie an elected Government.

Yeah, a democratically elected gubmint full of people motivated soley by promoting their own best interests...brilliant. :rolleyes:

When was the last time you saw an altruist politico?

[Warren Platts]

(there are no markets without rules).Sure there are: they're called black markets. No rules--only agreements.

[Disinfo Agent]

Sure there are: they're called black markets. No rules--only agreements.Fair enough. Do you wish to suggest that the black market is the ideal means to solve global warming?

[Doodler]

Yes , and if their best interest is to wreck the world ? Why not ? After all wars and ecological catastrophes can be profitable ?

If Amazonia is deforested it is because some people make big profits doing it .

If new energy technologies are developed it is because the oil price is too high not because companies have an interest in saving the World.So yes it can be self interest but an indirect one. Sometimes it work against environment , sometimes it works for it.

So i agree with DISINFO AGENT , we need regulation and control from a democratic political entity , ie an elected Government.

Has the Brazillian, or any other Amazonian nation, considered compensating the logging companies for replanting rainforest trees? Have they considered making it unprofitable to sell wood harvested in the Amazon? Could be very easy to slap a massive premium on the wood, making it an undesirable product to take to market.

[CodeSlinger]

Most of the time you can bypass that with a little reverse bribery, otherwise known as the "tax credit".

Touche :)

Yes , and if their best interest is to wreck the world ? Why not ? After all wars and ecological catastrophes can be profitable ?

If Amazonia is deforested it is because some people make big profits doing it .

If new energy technologies are developed it is because the oil price is too high not because companies have an interest in saving the World.So yes it can be self interest but an indirect one. Sometimes it work against environment , sometimes it works for it.

So i agree with DISINFO AGENT , we need regulation and control from a democratic political entity , ie an elected Government.

I never said that *as things stand* self-interest will drive people to do what's good for the environment. My point was that it's been shown time and again that self-interest is the best motivator. I agree with you, we need regulation and control from government on global warming and other issues. And the best measures governments can adopt are those that *alter circumstances* such that it is (significantly) in people's interests to do what is good for the environment. Doodler has listed a couple good ways of doing this.

[galacsi]

Has the Brazillian, or any other Amazonian nation, considered compensating the logging companies for replanting rainforest trees? Have they considered making it unprofitable to sell wood harvested in the Amazon? Could be very easy to slap a massive premium on the wood, making it an undesirable product to take to market.

I completely agree with you , a democratic state should have or could have done something like you said. So in fact there is no contradiction here between government regulation and market regulation. The two are usefull.

The problem is when some interest do own or control the government.

May be Argos can give us his insights on the subject. Or I am hijacking the thread ? Don't know.

[Larry Jacks]

When was the last time you saw an altruist politico?

An altruistic politician is pretty close to an oxymoron (and most politicians are ordinary morons to boot). It isn't altruism if you take money under penalty of law from one set of people to give to another set but it's often good politics.

He who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count of the support of Paul.

[mike alexander]

A question: Anyone here ever run for public office? If you did, did you win? If you won, did you manage to accomplish anything significant?

We all enjoy dumping on our elected representatives, mainly because they aren't as brilliant and clever as our treasured selves. Mainly because we do not deign to get our hands dirty in the grubby business of trying to herd the cats of civilization, but enjoy pointing out how we would have done it, assuming we had perfect consensus, unlimited powers and the ability to look ahead and see the consequences of the massively parallel role-playing game called the real world. Pols work with what they have.

Politics is the Big Game, and always has been. What did Shakespeare say?
"When beggars die there are no comets seen;The heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes."

If these guys are so blanking dumb, how come they're running things,eh?

[Doodler]

If these guys are so blanking dumb, how come they're running things,eh?

Just to clarify. I never said they were dumb, just selfish.

[mike alexander]

True. Wasn't you; Larry Jacks did.

Not to dump on Larry, but if they're morons, what does that make us?

[novaderrik]

True. Wasn't you; Larry Jacks did.

Not to dump on Larry, but if they're morons, what does that make us?
sheeple?

[Tinaa]

A question: Anyone here ever run for public office? If you did, did you win? If you won, did you manage to accomplish anything significant?

We all enjoy dumping on our elected representatives, mainly because they aren't as brilliant and clever as our treasured selves. Mainly because we do not deign to get our hands dirty in the grubby business of trying to herd the cats of civilization, but enjoy pointing out how we would have done it, assuming we had perfect consensus, unlimited powers and the ability to look ahead and see the consequences of the massively parallel role-playing game called the real world. Pols work with what they have.

Politics is the Big Game, and always has been. What did Shakespeare say?
"When beggars die there are no comets seen;The heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes."

If these guys are so blanking dumb, how come they're running things,eh?

My brother ran for and won a school board seat. He knew he could really make some changes for the better. He didn't count on having to fight the other members to change the status quo. It didn't take him long to realize that most people hate change. He didn't run again.

[Larry Jacks]

Not to dump on Larry, but if they're morons, what does that make us?

It makes us suckers if we believe their crap about "public service." Public service isn't seeking power over others. Public service is performed by people like the firefighters, paramedics, etc. who actually go out and help people. Almost all politicians are in it for themselves.

In one of his books, Arthur C. Clark suggested that the first qualification for President should be that the person doesn't want the job. I seriously question the sanity of anyone who does. Politics has caused more human suffering over the years than anything else including religion. How many million people were killed in the name of one political ideology or another (usually totalitarian) in the 20th century alone? Some put the figure at over 160 million (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.2.GIF). Don't try to tell me that government is the solution to our problems. It is the cause.

[Argos]

Has the Brazillian (...) considered compensating the logging companies for replanting rainforest trees?

Yes (http://www.planalto.gov.br/CCIVIL/Decreto-Lei/Del1376.htm). Refer to the Article 11, Item (b) - In Portuguese.


Have they considered making it unprofitable to sell wood harvested in the Amazon?


In the case of Brazil, not only unprofitable, but also illegal, when the logs originate from protected areas [there are self-sustained, permitted, logging activities].

Brazil is one of the countries that has reduced deforestation the most: 25% last year and 50% in the last two years.

Also, people fail to see that Brazil is the big pioneer in biofuels. Since 1977 ethanol is distributed nationwide. My first car, back in 1980, was ethanol-driven. All Brazilian cars from 2001 on are capable of running on both gas and alcohol. Now we are also becoming world leaders in biodiesel.

When it comes to Brazil, all the bashing is undeserved [and out of date, I´d say].

[mike alexander]

No, I personally disagree;government can both cause and solve problems, like any other human endeavor. It can send bombs around the world, or send pictures back from Saturn.

[Doodler]

Yes (http://www.planalto.gov.br/CCIVIL/Decreto-Lei/Del1376.htm). Refer to the Article 11, Item (b) - In Portuguese.



In the case of Brazil, not only unprofitable, but also illegal, when the logs originate from protected areas [there are self-sustained, permitted, logging activities].

Brazil is one of the countries that has reduced deforestation the most: 25% last year and 50% in the last two years.

Also, people fail to see that Brazil is the big pioneer in biofuels. Since 1977 ethanol is distributed nationwide. My first car, back in 1980, was ethanol-driven. All Brazilian cars from 2001 on are capable of running on both gas and alcohol. Now we are also becoming world leaders in biodiesel.

When it comes to Brazil, all the bashing is undeserved [and out of date, I´d say].

For that I apologize. The question at hand was limited only to the deforestation issue, I'm well aware of Brazil's other accomplishments. Brazil is simply the country with the most of the forest to its name so it was the obvious, if undeserving (with information in hand now) target.

[tofu]

DI
Where there's money to be made, someone will sell "green" products to "green" consumers


I saw something on TV about a year ago. The name of the show was (I think) Beyond Tomorrow. It was a story about a company that leases solar panels to businesses. Basically, the company takes all the risk associated with solar panels - risks like, will they break before they've paid for themselves? Who will maintain them? etc.

The business signs a lease in which they promise to buy the electricity from the panels at a competitive rate for a long term, say 10 years. From the business' perspective, not much changes. One day they are getting electricity from the power grid. The next day they are getting (some of their) electricity from the panels. They don't concern themselves with installation or anything like that. **Their electricity bill does not go up** The rates they are charged under the lease have to be competitive with the electric company or this model doesn't work.

Anyway, apparently solar panels have only recently become durable and reliable enough to make this business model profitable. I live in Florida, and it's sunny here most of the year. I look at all these department stores that we have in the US and I can't help but wonder how much electricity we could save if they all had solar panels. But the problem is, a business would have to take out a $100,000 loan in order to go solar, and if something happens - if there's a hurricane and the panels are damaged - there are lots of risks, then the business is stuck with that huge debt. That's why they don't do it. That's why this business model is genius. I really hope it takes off, because I think it would result in a much greater adoption of solar tech.

I think about my own house. My roof faces south. There are no trees obstructing the view of the ecliptic. And like I said, it's sunny all the time. Solar panels would be perfect on my house, but I can't pay $20,000 for something that will break-even 10 years later. I'm not going to take the risk that my roof will leak, etc. But I'd sign a contract for it.

[Disinfo Agent]

In one of his books, Arthur C. Clark suggested that the first qualification for President should be that the person doesn't want the job. I seriously question the sanity of anyone who does.I like Clarke, but I think he was being naive when he wrote that in The Songs of Distant Earth (although his full idea was more intriguing). It's just so easy to pretend you're not interested in power -- and politicians are masters at pretending. I prefer them to be upfront about their ambition.

I also agree with what Mike said: bashing "the politicos" is easy (and fun), but try changing the system from within, yourself, some time.

[korjik]

Not to dump on Larry, but if they're morons, what does that make us?

It makes us suckers if we believe their crap about "public service." Public service isn't seeking power over others. Public service is performed by people like the firefighters, paramedics, etc. who actually go out and help people. Almost all politicians are in it for themselves.

In one of his books, Arthur C. Clark suggested that the first qualification for President should be that the person doesn't want the job. I seriously question the sanity of anyone who does. Politics has caused more human suffering over the years than anything else including religion. How many million people were killed in the name of one political ideology or another (usually totalitarian) in the 20th century alone? Some put the figure at over 160 million (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.2.GIF). Don't try to tell me that government is the solution to our problems. It is the cause.

I have always prefered Robert Heinlein's idea on who should get to participate in government. :)

[Larry Jacks]

I have always prefered Robert Heinlein's idea on who should get to participate in government.

There's something to be said for that. For one thing, it'd eliminate a high percentage of the current office holders. Hard to see a downside to that. Now if we extended the idea to bureaucrats, it would be even better.

[Disinfo Agent]

But remember what Heinlein wrote about politics in Podkayne of Mars. :)

[Doodler]

I have always prefered Robert Heinlein's idea on who should get to participate in government.

There's something to be said for that. For one thing, it'd eliminate a high percentage of the current office holders. Hard to see a downside to that. Now if we extended the idea to bureaucrats, it would be even better.

Understand that there's a world of difference between elected politicians and bureaucratic lifers.

Bureaucrats, the aparachtiks of the system, are ingrained, idiotic, and quite simply the biggest source of inefficiency in government.

Somewhere in a more idealistic time, it was decided government workers couldn't get fired for being bumbling incompetents. Not sure how that happened or how much booze was involved, but its the ultimate nightmare that causes more soul rot in government than anything else.

[korjik]

Understand that there's a world of difference between elected politicians and bureaucratic lifers.

Bureaucrats, the aparachtiks of the system, are ingrained, idiotic, and quite simply the biggest source of inefficiency in government.

Somewhere in a more idealistic time, it was decided government workers couldn't get fired for being bumbling incompetents. Not sure how that happened or how much booze was involved, but its the ultimate nightmare that causes more soul rot in government than anything else.

And has killed a bunch of astronauts.

[Larry Jacks]

He may be a politician, but here's a Russian mayor (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295809,00.html) who's after my heart.

The mayor of a Siberian oil town has ordered his bureaucrats to stop using expressions such as "I don't know" and "I can't." Or look for another job.

Alexander Kuzmin, the 33-year-old mayor of Megion, has banned these and 25 other phrases as a way to make his administration more efficient, his spokeswoman said Tuesday.

"It's a suggestion to the staff that they should think before saying something," Oksana Shestakova said by telephone. "To say `I don't know' is the same as admitting your helplessness."

To reinforce the ban, a framed list of the banned expressions has been hanging on the wall next to Kuzmin's office for the past two weeks, Shestakova said.

Some of the other prohibited phrases are "What can we do?" "It's not my job," "It's impossible," "I'm having lunch," "There is no money," and "I was away/sick/on vacation."

Kuzmin, a businessman who was elected mayor 1 1/2 years ago, wants to "shake things up" in Megion, a town of 54,000 in the Khanty-Mansiisk region, the spokeswoman said.

Too bad civil service laws wouldn't allow us to do the same here. Civil service laws make it almost impossible to fire government employees no matter how bad they screw up. That's great for the deadwood and screw ups but terrible for the rest of us.

[Doodler]

Holy Zhivago, Jacks-man!! That's impressive!

[tofu]

I have always prefered Robert Heinlein's idea on who should get to participate in government. :)

It's an interesting idea, especially if you separate it from the idea of "military" which (if memory serves, it's been a couple of decades since I read it) Heinlein did.

It was *federal* service that made you a citizen, not military service. To be a citizen, you show up and say, "I volunteer for whatever you need people to do" and they might give you a job sorting papers from 9 to 5 or they might give you a job cleaning polar-bear snot off of a radar dish at the North Pole, or you might be the janitor at a national park. Further, they absolutely cannot turn you away for any reason. Service is your right. If a quadriplegic says, "I want to serve" they have to find something for him to do - maybe he can spellcheck stuff. And finally, the *only* advantage to citizenship is the right to vote. It has to be written into the constitution that no law can differentiate between citizen and civilian (there can't be a "tax cuts for citizens" bill) - I mention that because some people think that Heinlein was advocating a class system, where citizens discriminated against civilians. Rico's father was a successful businessman, but he wasn't a citizen (until the end of the book, when he signed up).

Sorry for the threadjack.

[Hydro]

Too bad civil service laws wouldn't allow us to do the same here. Civil service laws make it almost impossible to fire government employees no matter how bad they screw up. That's great for the deadwood and screw ups but terrible for the rest of us.

Stereotypical response. Civilians can be fired quite easily if the proper procedures are followed, and especially now under the new personnel system that is being ramrodded down our throats since 9/11, at least in the DoD.

[Argos]

Has the Brazillian, or any other Amazonian nation, considered compensating the logging companies for replanting rainforest trees? Have they considered making it unprofitable to sell wood harvested in the Amazon? Could be very easy to slap a massive premium on the wood, making it an undesirable product to take to market.

If I´m allowed another word on it, why people are so obsessed with the Amazon? How about the Taiga and the Boreal forests? They are bigger and thus more important as far as carbon sequestration is concerned. And they emit less methane than the Amazon forest. They are the ones to be conserved.

[DyerWolf]

It's an interesting idea, especially if you separate it from the idea of "military" which (if memory serves, it's been a couple of decades since I read it) Heinlein did.

It was *federal* service that made you a citizen, not military service. To be a citizen, you show up and say, "I volunteer for whatever you need people to do" and they might give you a job sorting papers from 9 to 5 or they might give you a job cleaning polar-bear snot off of a radar dish at the North Pole, or you might be the janitor at a national park. Further, they absolutely cannot turn you away for any reason. Service is your right. If a quadriplegic says, "I want to serve" they have to find something for him to do - maybe he can spellcheck stuff. And finally, the *only* advantage to citizenship is the right to vote. It has to be written into the constitution that no law can differentiate between citizen and civilian (there can't be a "tax cuts for citizens" bill) - I mention that because some people think that Heinlein was advocating a class system, where citizens discriminated against civilians. Rico's father was a successful businessman, but he wasn't a citizen (until the end of the book, when he signed up).

Sorry for the threadjack.

Tofu - I've often thought the same. I think if the US ever reinstitutes a draft it should be a national service draft - where some go to the military while others do various service jobs like you've described (sort of a CCC / Peace Corps type thing) and the only people who are exempted are those with severe mental or physical handicaps (who basically require full time care anyway). I think a few years of service is good for people.

I am really disappointed by the fact that few of our policy makers ever served in the military, but that's another discussion.

In any event, I am encouraged to see that there are many corporations, small businesses and individuals moving into the cleaner-technology market - especially in the developed countries. As Argos points out, Brazil's efforts are impressive and show it doesn't just have to be Europe and North America that can innovate.

The key, as I pointed out before, is to keep green a "want to have" - because it certainly isn't a need to have, yet (most people do not perceive there to be a crisis that they NEED to respond to) - thus as long as people WANT to have less polluting products, other folks will make and sell them.

[DyerWolf]

If I´m allowed another word on it, why people are so obsessed with the Amazon? How about the Taiga and the Boreal forests? They are bigger and thus more important as far as carbon sequestration is concerned. And they emit less methane than the Amazon forest. They are the ones to be conserved.

Advertising. Most people have no idea where the Tiaga is (in fact, most people would thing you'd misspelled Tiara. But the rainforests are beautiful, have little froggies, and monkeys and people with bones in their noses who might someday become good Christians - if only we can get enough missionaries down there (sorry, my sarcastic nature just came out...). The rainforests have captured the imagination.

US and European media are focused on Infotainment and Edutainment - not informative reporting or education. Their market-analysis people say that they'll lose market share if they try to educate the masses. They think that if someone hears the word "sequestration," that their eyes will roll up in the back of their head and they will twitch until someone turns the channel to NASCAR.

Who knows - maybe NASCAR sells more soap.

[Disinfo Agent]

Advertising. Most people have no idea where the Tiaga is (in fact, most people would thing you'd misspelled Tiara. But the rainforests are beautiful, have little froggies, and monkeys and people with bones in their noses who might someday become good Christians - if only we can get enough missionaries down there (sorry, my sarcastic nature just came out...). The rainforests have captured the imagination.Besides, it's more intuitive to blame the brown people in the tropics for the problems of the Amazon than the white man for the demise of the taiga. (Oops, I think that sarcasm of yours may be contagious...;))

[Argos]

Advertising. Most people have no idea where the Tiaga is (in fact, most people would thing you'd misspelled Tiara. But the rainforests are beautiful, have little froggies, and monkeys and people with bones in their noses who might someday become good Christians - if only we can get enough missionaries down there (sorry, my sarcastic nature just came out...). The rainforests have captured the imagination.

US and European media are focused on Infotainment and Edutainment - not informative reporting or education. Their market-analysis people say that they'll lose market share if they try to educate the masses. They think that if someone hears the word "sequestration," that their eyes will roll up in the back of their head and they will twitch until someone turns the channel to NASCAR.

Who knows - maybe NASCAR sells more soap.

Sweet. :)

The problem is that this eagerness for the exotic exerts an unfair pressure on the development of that region.

And if people are worried about froggies and birdies and all, they can relax, sleep tight and have sweet dreams, because down here you´re more likely to go to jail for killing a golden lion-monkey than for killing a person.

[Argos]

Besides, it's more intuitive to blame the brown people in the tropics for the problems of the Amazon than the white man for the demise of the taiga. (Oops, I think that sarcasm of yours may be contagious...;))

Nailed. ;)

For the records, I´m white.

[NEOWatcher]

Nailed. ;)

For the records, I´m white.
I'm bisque... nice to meet you. :lol:

[Argos]

The people who exploit and are potentially destructive to the Amazon are white [Brazilians and foreigners]. The brown people are not to blame. That would be another stereotype [I know Disinfo Agent is aware of it].

[Disinfo Agent]

I've seen your picture, Argos, and you're probably whiter than I, but my point was that "first world" citizens have a tendency to look to the rest of the world with complacency, and assume that the "brown peoples" do nothing but mess things up, while the whiter west of course can do no wrong. At the end of the day, it's not even racism in most cases; just intellectual laziness. Thinking in stereotypes.

[Doodler]

If I´m allowed another word on it, why people are so obsessed with the Amazon? How about the Taiga and the Boreal forests? They are bigger and thus more important as far as carbon sequestration is concerned. And they emit less methane than the Amazon forest. They are the ones to be conserved.

http://www.nps.gov/search/query-meta?v%3aproject=NPS&v%3afile=viv_I2SJYT&v:state=(root-0-20(N310)(N214))%7Croot-0-10%7C0

We're all over it.