h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

thanks for all the good input you guys... and patience with me. i read everything and am taking it to heart. i dont know alot of facts so i will probably pretty much watch. maybe because i am here in the US i can give some input on the feel of the place and what it was like when... (insert event)

Here is what i figured out about what happened earlier:
In my first post (post 2) i was responding to the title of the thread and overlooked the climate twist to it.

In my second post (post 4) i responded to a remark about how perhaps now the right wing has learned its lesson since bush has botched things so badly.

In my third posting (post 6) i responded to the blaming of the US people instead of its government. and i also responded, too briefly, to the topic of climate effects if gore had been allowed to take his office.

Subsequent postings were in defense of the american people's blamelessness due to voter disenfranchisement.

Subsequent postings also addressed my concerns that americans were being bashed, here on h2g2, by brits.

And one little something i noticed as i was reading.... in posts 14 and 15
14 is arnie saying yet another american bashing thread started by kea
15 is KEA saying "troll"
arnie did NOT say "troll"

and finally, you discussed and established that the trolling was not deliberate. it still remains that the line in question in post 5 about feelings was off topic and distracting. i accept blame for addressing it. i should have ignored it and if the concept continued to pop up then i could have addressed it... hopefully, succinctly and with astounding wit and insight.


done

also, i watched that 30 minute video that Taliesin shared a ways back... it was well worth it! it educated me on the the religious right in a very clear way. thanks.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2829599695690924108

To go back to the original question, I'm not sure it would have made an enormous difference (environmentally speaking) if Gore had been elected. There's a big difference between what someone will say once their political career is effectively over and what they'll say and do in office. Even if we give Gore the benefit of the doubt and suppose he really believes in what he's saying now, it's unlikely that in power he would have been able to achieve all that much. The Kyoto treaty for example, was signed (by Gore) in 1998 but it has to be ratified by the Senate before it comes into effect, and there would be a whole lot of pressure on them not to.

On the other hand, the war on Iraq probably wouldn't have happened, and that would have been a good thing.

Does that mean the Democrats in general aren't supportive enough of Kyoto to withstand the pressure?

If Gore had won in 2000, then he'd have faced a Republican-controlled House, so he wouldn't have had very much legislative clout (comparatively, of course). I'm not sure he'd have made much difference at all, in terms of the legislation passed until now. What would have happened is that the environment would be a much bigger issue in US politics, and would be something that the Republicans would have to focus on as well, especially with the presidential election coming up next year.

<>

I don't think Americans in general are willing to sign up to multi-lateral treaties which restrict their behaviour. It's interesting to note that many US states have brought in environmentally aware policies, even Republican ones.

I believe the Americans are already signed to binding targets for CO2 reduction. I think it was George Bush Senior who signed them. But I'm not 100% on that.

Being signed up to binding targets is one thing. Being signed up to binding targets that are actually going to make a difference soon enough is quite another.


Pedro, do you think that had Gore won 2000, that the environment would have been an election issue in 2004?

It's not an elected dictatorship in the US. Kyoto would have to be ratified by Congress as well - which was Republican controlled until 2006. Are we also positing that Democrats took control of Congress in 2000?

Pedro, do you think that had Gore won 2000, that the environment would have been an election issue in 2004?

Yeah, but how major or minor is hard to say. It seems from various sources that the Bush administration is heavily interfering with climate science. That wouldn't have happened under Gore, so a steady drip-drip of worrying environmental news, backed by the White House, would have changed the political climate somewhat.

I don't think CO2 emissions would have changed by much though. Any politician is going to try and get re-elected, and putting energy prices up (to discourage CO2 emissions) is electoral suicide, particularly in the US. They'll have to do it gradually under their political system (as will the rest of the West).

kea,

Well I'm far from expert enough in US politics to say for sure, but my impression is that the Dems aren't especially keen on it and that the pressures are enormous (with possibly the latter causing the former).