In case context matters to anyone, here's the full quote:
All right. So that's what we want to do on global warming here in the United States. We are also going to have to negotiate with other countries. China, India, in particular Brazil. They are growing so fast that they are consuming more and more energy and pretty soon, if their carbon footprint even approaches ours, we're goners. That's part of the reason why we've got to make the investment. We got to lead by example. If we lead by example, if we lead by example, then we can actually export and license technologies that have been invented here to help them deal with their growth pains. But keep in mind, you're right, we can't tell them don't grow. We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine. Don't worry about us. That's not leadership.
He wasn't saying we need permission from other countries to do these things; he's saying that if we are going to extract commitments from China, India and Brazil to make changes, we're going to have to too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree that when most of the righties quote only this:
We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine. Don't worry about us. That's not leadership.
Then, what he appears to be saying has nothing to do with China and India. Rather, it seems like he's saying we have to consult with our European betters. That isn't what he was talking about.
Having conceded that, the eating part of the comment made no sense to me in full context.
The other nit I have is his comparison to our 3% population rather than our economic output. I know it dehumanizes but I think that is the better comparison.
yep, I agree that the eating part was odd. I think he has in his head the amount of fuel that goes into transporting food, but there's no way to tell that from what he said, and maybe I'm giving it too much credit. Maybe makes more sense to use output or gdp rather than population; I have to think about that some more. I think, though, that he's making the case that other countries would make and so is using the worst case figures that they would use.
Post a Comment