You're doing it again and misunderstanding the whole issue. Nowhere does anyone mention that the automobile is the sole/main contributer to pollution/greenhouse gases in the USA. The automobile is used as one example because it is one that we all know about and can easily relate to. And it isn't false to focus on US automobiles as an example, as even you can't deny the fact that american automobiles have been, and in many cases still are, the least efficient automobiles anywhere. This type of disregard for efficiences permeates other US industries also, as it is the result of a state of mind that puts money and convienience before more important issues, such as the environment. Now you can't possibly be saying that the attitude (ineffieciency) the US has towards automobiles, only applies to automobiles, as no one is going to believe that.
I do understand the issues very well, but I understand the continuing deception of the issue even better. By your own admission that the auto is the most easily identified and related to, the continuing focus on it tends to misleads the receivers of your message that the auto, specificly American autos are the bane of the environment. You don't have to aver that the auto is the sole/main source of pollutants, but there's a thing called "lying by omission", or in this case, by minimizing the effect other sources, you've knowingly or not, passing on the message that American autos are the source. Tell a lie often enough, and it'll psychologically becomes the truth. I've watched enough ITV back in the 80s to remember whenever the US is the focus, our automobiles are the most convenient targets of opportunity. Your logic is flawed in that you've falsely translated cheap gas=inefficient autos=inefficient industries. In a highly competitive market such as the US, inefficiency cost money, and your more efficient competitor will own you. Chrysler had to be bail out by our government, that's politics, and that's another issue altogether. The point is that it took a foreign car maker to force ours to become more efficient.
I've already shown that from an engineering standpoint, the internal combustion engine/hydrocarbon fuel combination can be improved, but not to blame, since it's only a part of an industry call automotive, of which the falsely maligned SUV is a small segment of the auto industry, which is dominated by much more fuel efficient sedans, which consumes much less petroleum products (in the form of gasoline) than even the cosmetic industry. The explosion of the IT sector make even more demands on the world's resources of oil. Whenever media images of geysers spewing out crude around a drill bit, what comes after that ? Surprise...The car...Or more specifically, the American SUV. Put yourself in the PR seat, would the message of fuel inefficiency played as well if you try to use lipstick, face cream, prams, hard drives, or keyboards ? As to your last sentence, the reason no one is going to believe that we do have highly efficient segments of our industries is because they've been inundated with crude oil=American cars for so long that it'll be next to impossible to change their minds, especially when the deception is continuing.
How can you say that when those very nations that have benefitted ARE willing to do something about the environment, and they also criticise themselves for not doing enough.
Explain why Australia, one of the world's top coal producer, if not the top, refuses to sign the Kyoto Treaty, especially when she was one of the original signatories. What is it about the Treaty's demands that made industrialized nations such as Sweden and Australia that have benefitted from trade and commerce with US changed their minds ? What is it about the Treaty that made Canada's Alberta "environment" minister Lorne Taylor made public verbal mutinied against his federal government ? Is it because the Treaty, in details, started to cut into the dinner plates and leisure times of the decadent West ?
We all want comforts, but we also don't mind giving up many comforts in return for better environment. The US most of all can afford to do this. We Europeans produce less pollution than the US, and we're not exactly underproductive. Basically, what you are saying (if I am reading this correctly) is that its ok for the US to be greedy, to lead the world at any cost, and to do anything in pursuit of wealth, and you say that others only point the finger simply because they aren't able to keep up and are jealous. You couldn't be further from the truth, if that is really what you are saying.
No, that isn't what I'm saying...My point have always been the intellectual, linguistic, and statistical deceptions pop anti-American environmental critics have always opportunistically used in their tirades. Lip service criticism have occasionally been levied against equally polluting superpowers such as the Soviets or China just to give the appearance of impartiality, but when it comes to US ? No efforts or lies are sufficient. Our automobile industry, as you've admitted, are the most visible, hence the easiest to demonize. Nevermind that while there are no gas guzzling SUVs in the Ukraine or Moskva proper, those places are just as polluted as among the worst of ours. Underproductive means you've produced less than what is estimated of your potential taken into considerations your READILY AVAILABLE resources. That means your North Seas oil fields shouldn't be unfairly held against you, as underseas oil exploration is exceptionally risky and speculative. Trade and commerce dies if there isn't a top consumer that everyone knows will buy. From the turn of the century, we've been that top consumer, as we've been trying to develop a still unknown continent. Once we've done spread out, we started to build up. Post war Japan and Germany could've done it without our market, but it would've take them much longer, same could be said for Europe.
Lead the world at any cost ? Read up on your history. The US was isolationistic prior to both WWs. WW2 started in 1939, we didn't enter it until late 1941. Greedy ? Read up on your history again. How many European powers were in Asia ? China belonged to the British and who else ? Indochina belonged to France. Much of the Pacific islands were under German control. Why does Brazil speaks Portuguese ? Did the British and the Continentals were in that part of the world out of altruistic motives ? What and how did the British earned the the phrase "The sun never set on the British Empire" ? Convenient memory lapse, wouldn't you say ?
Pollution generated by the US does not confine itself to the US, but affects us all. Much like non-smokers sharing a room with those that do smoke. No one has a right to pollute the lungs of others and bring upon them the consequences of doing so.
Bad analogy. Smoking is a choice. If I don't smoke, that doesn't mean I'm going to die sooner than those who do. Progress is even less of a choice than smoking. If a society don't progress, it stagnate and eventually dies. If I don't smoke, I can outrun those who do. If my country don't develope as the rest of the world. We run the very real risk of being conquered and my culture erased. Japan's modernization drive has less to do with her militaristic leadership than with the observance of other imperial powers, such as the British, controlling vast territories bordering on her doorstep, and eventually come to the very real conclusion that if Japan doesn't "smoke", Japan will die. The Chinese were at that time a fragmented society, they didn't "smoke", they ended up under British rule. Trade, commerce, and progress are "must haves".
There is no dishonesty here, and that is why the word 'seen' was used. America has an image problem, and I was merely pointing that out, and giving reasons why this image problem exists. There is no smoke without fire.
So you're willing to go along with the image without substance...Another image problem for the US that I really like is that how US led embargo against Iraq is starving the people. Nevermind how in 2001 the World Food Program fed 77 million people around the world for under 2 billions dollars, yet Saddam can't fed 23 million Iraqis for over 2 billions, the cost of his palaces. Numbers don't lie, but it's easier to deal in images.
The problem with the US is that it does not control this greed, and take some responsibility, in its relentless pursuit of wealth, whatever the cost. Enron was a pretty good example.
Just as you've falsely used the SUV, now you brought up Enron. Nevermind for example the state of Minnesota received more than 250mil from in state corporate philanthropy. According to SocialFund.com more than $2 trillions are invested in socially responsible investments, and you brought up Enron.
Equilibrium IS what a lot of social, political, etc ideas are about.
All economic theories inevitably ties in with social and political ones. "Natural" equilibrium (and being a pragmatist I'm extremely uncomfortable with that concept) isn't possible with the naturally uneven distribution of natural resources. Unless with extensive investment resulting in early losses, a desert can't become an agricultural resource soon enough. Sometimes you have no choice but to continually take losses on certain aspects of your economy out of national security necessity, for example. In this case, how "natural" is it in terms of free market capitalism ? The best the US, the UK, the EU, or Asia, can make is local equilibrium in their immediate economy. The gripe with India is that their cheap labor is threatening the local economic stability. Fair gripes enough. We got Mexico. But it's incongruous to condemn capitalism in toto, in the name of social/economic justice, while asking for governmental controls to preserve capitalism in parts.
[hint: stability = no increase, growth = increase]
