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. 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. 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. 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. We live together on this tiny planet, and as such we all need to do our share. If not smoking (analogy) is not an option, then smoking in moderation is the next best thing. You can't have one person choosing to smoke as much as they like, when others are trying to cut back, now can you? You can't have one smoker telling everyone else that because they have more cigarettes than you, because they manufacture the cigarettes that many of you smoke, then they can afford to smoke as much as they like, even though no one else wants to breath in your smoke, for health reasons, which has nothing to do with not having enough cigarettes to go around. Those that have chosen to reduce their cigarette production, in exchange for better health, but lower income, don't like it when others don't play along. That's understandable wouldn't you say? At last, agreement of sorts. As mentioned, it is only one example, and one which shows a disregard for efficient use of resources that plagues american society. This attitude doesn't just apply to automobiles, though I do realise that things are changing, slowly. 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. No one ever said that merchantile greed was endemic to the US. Merchantile greed is in fact something that most humans suffer from. 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. One day all our fuel resources will be gone, so why speed that process along with inefficient use of what we have left. Again, no one said anything about not using your automobile, and indeed the world needs to change with regard to using personal automobiles. We need better public transport systems so that single persons do not have to travel using a single automobile, thus wasting natural resources unnecessarily. More efficient automobiles is one step in the right direction, and america is not known for its efficient combustion engines and small vehicles.