in reference to china and india, why don’t they just introduce green technology as a luxury industry if it is too expensive for the general public? like a gucci bag, or sports car.

You’re absolutely right, but global climate change is a global problem (good name right?). As citizens of the world we need to work together to combat the effects of our technology, and our behavior. This shouldn’t hinder economic growth, it should expand it. Green energy is another industry to introduce, which produces jobs everywhere around the world, non-outsourceable.

The genocide in the former Yugoslavia was Europe’s problem but nothing was done to stop it until the United States got involved. The genocides in Rwanda and Darfur were not stopped because the United States did not get involved. So forgive me for thinking that nothing is going to be done about Global Climate Change unless the United States does it. Since China and India are going to improve their economies in order to lift their populations out of poverty. Given current technologies, that means that both countries will be increasing their carbon dioxide output into the atmosphere by more than total US carbon dioxide production, we will have to both develop sources of energy that are both cheaper than petroleum and that produce less carbon dioxide. I think that Robert Zubrin has the most promising suggestion for how to do that. We will also have to develop massive carbon sinks, such as fertilizing the blue water area of the oceans with iron powder to sequester some of the carbon dioxide.

The other nice thing about Zubrin’s plan is that it makes petroleum less valuable which will make the world a safer place since bad people will have less money to make mischief.

I was under the impression that the core principle of Realism was simply the idea that States are rational and try to maximize relative power? Because of this, I found the Kos article to be off the mark.

Exactly right. The Kos kids are having fun by pretending to be knowledgeable, and repeating terms that they have heard educated-sounding people say.

Judging by Obama’s rhetoric, past political affiliations, and past voting record, he would seem to fit the Constructivist worldview the best? Most of all, Obama has said himself that “words matter.” To the Constructivist, the words people use are representative of the ideas people share within a socially constructed social structure.

I hadn’t thought about this, but it makes sense.

I’m not sure if Obama is that knowledgeable or thoughtful in the first place, however.

ATB,

Thanks for the link.

The Obama ad makes claims without offering any support, so on much of it I really don’t know what the Obama campaign is talking about.

“Lose track” of course is an age-loaded pejorative word. It’s as even a statement as referring to Obama’s shuck and jive routine.

The Obama ad does not address Obama’s previous support for carbon taxes, including taxing dirty energy. I’m not sure how that wouldn’t be a regressive tax, because of course the poor pay more for energy relative to their total income than the rich.

(Not that it such can’t be a good idea — Obama, if he still supports it, would just be deceptive in his support for his tax plan).

Judging by Obama’s rhetoric, past political affiliations, and past voting record, he would seem to fit the Constructivist worldview the best? Most of all, Obama has said himself that “words matter.” To the Constructivist, the words people use are representative of the ideas people share within a socially constructed social structure.

Perhaps you could debunk this.

You’re absolutely right, but global climate change is a global problem (good name right?). As citizens of the world we need to work together to combat the effects of our technology, and our behavior. This shouldn’t hinder economic growth, it should expand it. Green energy is another industry to introduce, which produces jobs everywhere around the world, non-outsourceable.

Tdaxp,

Regardless of whether you believe in global warming or not, you must surely believe in clean air and water, sanitation, and good health? Fortunately, the strategies to support those things correlate with strategies to combat global warming, so regardless of what you believe, we progress toward the same goal.

Also, one point in the summary of the book compared the costs of preventing a glacier from melting and building a levy system around nations. The thing with that is, if the icecaps melted, we would all undoubtedly be submerged in water…at least along the coasts (where I am)

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/10/12/review-of-cool-it-the-skeptical-environmentalists-guide-to-global-warming-by-bjorn-lomborg.html
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/08/09/in-europe-at-least-global-warming.html

Perhaps you have an article on global warming?

Any consideration of global warming needs to consider that China and India are each going to add more than the US contribution of green house gases to the atmosphere over the next decade or two. China has already surpassed the United States in green house gas production. India is not that far behind.

That means that even if the United States reduces our production of greenhouse gases to zero, the world will still get more green house gas added to the atmosphere than is done today.

What that suggests to me is that more attention sould be paid to sinks than to sources because China and India are not going to keep their populations in poverty in order to achieve some green house gas limit.

I am merely comparing the education of both candidates. Why is that wrong?

You blatantly stated that Obama is a fool or naif, and equally so I am pointing out the irony in the various candidates educations.

Also in your link 1, he brings up a good point…why elect someone whos biggest issue will be his health?