durrr?
- “We can’t drive our SUVs…”
- “…and eat as much as we want…”
- “…and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times…”
- “…and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK”
Well, they’re ugly and stupid and wasteful, but on the other hand, they make it a lot easier to detect self-important douchewhistles.
Waaaait a second…
What if I have a geothermal heat pump? or live in the Pacific Northwest? What temperature am I allowed to keep my house at? Shit… is 72 too warm for the winter or too cool for the summer?
‘k, full fucking stop. I keep my house at 64 in the winter because I don’t want to waste energy and I don’t want to waste money, not because Sweden is shaking its head at me. I don’t own a car because it’s not really necessary. I didn’t sell it because I was guilty about those accusatory looks I was getting from Peru. And if, hypothetically, I had lost my senses and decided to drive around eating McDolphin burgers in an Escalade, and Spain got all butthurt about it?
Spain can jump up my dick.
I make the ecologically responsible choice when I can because it’s the right thing to do, and it’s usually the economically responsible choice as well. I have not, do not, and will never make a choice because it will make a foreign country happy. If there’s a progressive and evolved citizen of the international community out there who’s moved beyond neanderthal policies like national sovereignty, could you please explain this to me?
Responsible tirades don’t base themselves on a quote with an ellipsis in the middle.
The omitted words were “whether we’re living in the desert or we’re living in the tundra”, if that changes anything.
I was just being an ass (since it seems that that was the mode you’re operating with
).
National sovereignty clearly has limits (gross human rights violations spring to mind), and a discussion about how multiple nations use a shared resource is something that it prudent.
International relations depends on countries taking other countries ‘happiness’ into consideration as well, so it’s a bit silly to complain about that (as an extreme example, invading a country tends to irritate its populace).
Not sure where the human rights violations thing came from. Also, so long as we’re talking about energy usage (which he discusses in the next sentence), we’re not talking about a shared resource. Crude oil and coal belong to the countries within whose borders they are found, and are commodities bought and sold on international markets. If we use 25% of the energy, it’s not like we’re greedy and took all the cookies away from everybody else. We pay for it with our currency just like everyone else.
I’m not suggesting that I go out of my way to spite other countries, but the decisions I make regarding my personal energy use (and secondary energy use, like local vs. shipped-in food) are based on what I believe to be a responsibility to tread lightly on the environment. That wasn’t the motivation I took away from that quote. If there’s a valid environmental reason to sacrifice my quality of life for a greater or lesser degree, tell me that reason. “Because the EU will like you more” is not a reason, because I did not elect them and they don’t represent or govern me.
Also not sure where the invading a country bit came from. And being an ass is SOP.
It’s not the use of energy that other countries object to, as much as the products of combustion of the resources that you mention.
We all share the same atmosphere. I think the intent was to link environmental issues to broader international political issues (and emphasize his personal style of progress via negotiation and consensus building). Additionally, it’s criticism of the current administration’s lack of participation in Kyoto (participation in which was a Bush campaign promise in 2000).
Human rights violations is an example of a circumstance where national sovereignty is ignored (and most people agree that that it is appropriate to intervene).
Invading a country is also a violation (by force) of it’s sovereignty.
I would also inject that the currency you use to buy things (energy, food, whatnot) is backed up by the ‘wealth’ generation of the country which has that capability in large part because of some serious injustices (historical and in some cases continuing), so it’s not a very powerful moral argument.
As a policy pragmatist (even though I’m a crazy liberal), I’m happy enough if you make choices I like (even if your motivation for doing them is different from mine).