Sybarite
New member
... As they say, we're all entitled to our opinions. But do you or anyone else have an explanation as to why certain countries (USA, China, Russia) and ideological groups within these countries are less receptive to climate change and more critical of both its scientific researchers and political advocates?
Woah! Big questions.
Economics primarily, in all three cases – although for Russia and China one has to bear in mind that, industrially speaking, they're both developing nations, so the economic concerns are primarily ones around the issues of development – certainly in China; Russia is slightly different again.
In terms of the US: in my opinion, I think that there is a long-term culture of seeing success in terms of material goods; success is buying things and then buying them bigger. We're not actually that far from a similar approach in the UK – an attitude that I see as different from other parts of Europe that I know, where quality of life seems to be of more importance than the number of white goods you own.
In the US, the issue of cars isn't the sole issue, but I think that the attitude that I see and hear reported to the idea that gas-guzzling giants should give way to more environmentally sound vehicles is one of 'don't touch my big car', and it's indicative of the barrier to change. Perhaps this whole attitude is something to do with the pioneer spirit and a sense of the scale of the country – particularly away from the main urban areas? I think that there's also that whole US idea of 'freedom' – the freedom to do pretty much whetever you want (you see it in terms of the issue of gun control as well).
I do think that capitalism in general is very short-sighted; it rarely plans for anything other than the next profit and share dividend, and I suspect that that is part of the motivation of putting off action – a fear of what action could mean to profits.
I also wonder – and here I'm stepping out on a limb – what role religion has to play in this. From what I read and see, a large number of US citizens consider themselves to be evangelical Christians – quite fundamentalist, in other words. If one believes that the world is going to end sometime soon, then perhaps one isn't going to worry too much about the future state of the planet. And with the exception of New Orleans, then as far as I know, climate change has yet to have a major impact on the US itself (and one could suggest that New Orleans isn't going to be allowed to bother the White House too much because it was primarily poor blacks who suffered). Let's face it, certain US religious extremists actually declared that that catastophe was God's punishment for the city allowing gay events. And if you say it's God's doing, then what action could you take anyway to have avoided such things or avoid them in the future?
Apparently, some support for the Iraq war has been from Christians who see chaos in the Middle East as a precondition to the second coming. Perhaps some people – including those in power, and we know that George W Bush has very particular religious beliefs – actually see predictions for 'the end times' being fulfilled by environmental degredation?
My suspicion is that the reality is complex and probably incorporates some or all of these things for different people considering the situation, although in terms of the decision makers, then the issue of profit is perhaps paramount; neither Republicans nor Democrats will easily take on big business in a way that could be perceived as being restrictive or anti-profit.
The problem is that the US is hugely important in the question of how the problem is tackled. It's very difficult, for instance, for the developed world to tell China and Russia (and other developing nations) what they should and should not do when the so-called leader of the free world is doing the opposite (the same can be said of arms development).
Other nations can only do so much. The US, by virtue of its global position at this stage in human history, has to set an example and take a lead.