For Cappies/Supporters of the USA - Why not in S.A.?

[j]

I'd like a cappie or other type of supporter of the US to tell me why it is a good move for George Bush and the US to stay out of the global sustainability conference in South Africa?

j

[Anonymous]

It's not in our best interest.

Besides, Bush has much better things to do then listen to a bunch of enviro-pinkos rave on about how "evil" and 'immoral" the U.S. is.

(Edited by Dark Capitalist at 2:18 am on Aug. 30, 2002)

[Nateddi]

nice justification, idiot

[Anonymous]

How about this:


Earth Summit Seen As 'Gathering to Attack Wealth'
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 28, 2002

Johannesburg (CNSNews.com) - An American free market advocate calls the Earth summit now under way in South Africa, "a collection of advocates gathering to attack wealth."

Chris Horner, an analyst with the free market advocacy group Competitive Enterprise Institute, said it is obvious that after two days, delegates to the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development view wealth "as the root of evil behind environmental problems, when in reality, all evidence is to the contrary."

Horner told CNSNews.com the summit participants have referred to economic growth using terms such as "greed" and "rapacious," and those who seek wealth as having the "mindset of cancer cells."

Horner, who is attending the summit, sharply disagreed with a U.N.-sponsored forum suggesting that less wealth would mean less poverty. (The U.N. forum was titled, "Wealth Eradication: Directly Tied to Poverty Reduction." )

According to Horner, the only solution to environmental woes is a wealthier planet. "Wealthier is healthier and cleaner," he said.

Population problems and resource limitations are a result of countries being unable to create enough wealth to support their residents, Horner said. "Population problems only come from poor countries that don't make anything but people," he added.

A report Tuesday in the London newspaper The Sun detailed how delegates to Earth summit are staying at posh hotels and feasting on gourmet foods while they hold meetings on eradicating poverty and famine. That report did not surprise Horner.

"It is a hypocritical attack on wealth because the U.N.'s own sustainability seems to be their number-one objective," he quipped.

Healing Africa

Reinhild Niebuhr, author of the book Young Africa , decried the lack of economic opportunities for Africa's youth and called on the summit participants to increase development opportunities for them.

"A majority of people in Africa are under age 25 and they are not able to fulfill their potential, Niebuhr told CNSNews.com .

Niebuhr disagreed with the position of environmentalist Gar Smith of the Earth Island Insitute, who told CNSNews.com earlier this week that electricity should not be introduced to African villages because it could have an adverse impact on the culture. (See Story: Environmentalist Laments Introduction of Electricity)

"Regardless of whether anyone thinks the introduction of electricity is negative or not, it is happening. People see electricity and want the benefit of electricity," Niebuhr said.

"You can respect culture and you can develop. You can don't have to stay in an environment which is making your life difficult," she added.

'Bury the Summit?'

The summit negotiations have caused some environmental groups to lose their enthusiasm for the proceedings.

One event called "Don't Bury the Summit Yet!" was aimed at calming the anger of disgruntled environmentalists who are fed up with what they see as big business's hijacking of the summit.

The event's sponsors included the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.

"The resources of Mother Earth are being sold off," stated Anuradha Mittal of the Indian group Food First.

Mittal was referring to summit compromises on agenda items ranging from pollution prevention to developing a sustainable fisheries industry.

The green groups also are upset that access to the Sandton Center, where the summit is being held, has been restricted to environmental non-governmental organizations (NGO's) due to space limitations.

Secretary General Nitlin Desai, the head of the U.N.'s Earth summit, reacted to the green groups' grumbling, telling South African Public Radio, "This conference will be different."

Good News on Tropical Forests

In marked contrast to the dire environmental picture painted by international green groups, one event at the summit brought hopeful news regarding tropical forests.

The International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), a timber industry advocacy group, held an event on the sidelines of the conference showing that the world's tropical forests are regenerating and that new technologies are lessening the impact of logging on the environment.

Manoel Sobral, the executive director of ITTO, told CNSNews.com that deforestation pressures on tropical forests are lessening because of the emerging "plantation forests" that grow timber in controlled, farm-like settings that allow for rapid regeneration, greater efficiency and lower costs.

"Forget about the natural tropical forest as a timber producer. They are not competitive," Sobral said.

He cited the Amazon rainforest as an example of how plantation forests are helping to relieve deforestation.

"In Brazil there are 360 million hectares of dense natural forest, but 70% of the industrial timber comes from the five million hectares of plantation forest," he told CNSNews.com.

Other actions at the summit Tuesday included calls for the U.S., Western Europe and Japan to eliminate their domestic farm subsidies to allow the developing world's agricultural economies to better compete.

Bush urged to 'fight back'



Horner believes that President George Bush should fight back at the anti-U.S. sentiment permeating the summit.

"Mr. Bush, it would seem, had best learn when to nip outrageous, mendacious rhetoric in the bud before he nurtures it by his silence," Horner said.

"Barring such leadership... the U.S. faces a grim future in this community and among easily-led peoples everywhere," he added.

[j]

When will the US take responsibility for its actions? Environmental problems are a direct result of US consumption.

We talk big about making criminals be accountable for their actions but Big Brother can't even take responsibility for its actions.

Ya, know when an alcoholic joins AA he has to stand up and say that he is an alcoholic. Once he admits that, the healing can begin. This is what the US needs to do. Georgie needs to stand up and admit that the US has had a large contributing factor to the degredation of the environment and then start to come up with solutions. This whole denial thing is amazing. Oh they are just anti-american.....they hate our freedoms.....please.

As for wealth, the US is one of the most wealthy nations on earth and thus is extremely harmful to the environment in both its consumption and the capitalistic dipshits who exploit other parts of the world. Capitalism is based on exploitation!!!!!!

Other than anti-US rhetoric, is there another reason Bush has not gone to the summit?

j

[Turnoviseous]

This reminds me on the case when America got rid of part of old refrigerators (that are bad for ozone) and then they got reward. Of course, they got reward before anyone knew that they just sold them to Third World countries.

[Chasovoy]

dark capitalist, what a "smart answer"

asshole

[marxistdisciple]

What a dumb article. Of course wealth doesn't cause poverty, but the lack of it does. The US exploits these poor nations, and pollutes more than the rest of the world, and it should give something back.

Anti-capitalists are not against 'wealth' and neither is the UN. It is against putting a artificially created concept, (i.e. money) before the needs of living breathing human beings. Do you capitalists not actually understand that point? Maybe it is because you are either a) Not human or B) Still trying to understand human emotion.

The only way of looking at it from a capitalist view is to be ultra-selfish about everything, and hope that the world will repair itself 'naturally through the free market.' Come on, do you really believe that nations without WATER can compete in the 'free' market?

You see, the major problem with the fallacy of the 'free' market is that it isn't free at all. It costs too much. That's the problem. Maybe they should rename it the 'really expensive market' in the name of semantic correctness.