Views on the Green Issue - 35 years ago?

   Having re-read "Global Reach - The Power of Multinational Corporations" by Richard J. Barnet & Ronald E. Muller - published in 1974 - I was amazed to find the same lame approach to 'Pollution' then as it was called, as we are hearing for  today's 'Climate-Change' or 'Global Warming' 35 years on. 
I guess progress is slow in the corporate chambers when ass does not get kicked hard enough. 

I will be bringing you snippets of the equally nonsensical solutions that were being put forward then - where the cost burden was destined to be picked up by the citizen directly and indirectly through government responsibility to take action. I guess it could be interesting for those who have not yet reached 40?

The major creators of pollution will pay a minimal price (as has always been the case) for their past careless approach to toxic waste.  

Just a beginning - " In 1970, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler accepted a consent decree which in effect admitted that they had conspired for 17 years to keep anti-pollution devices off the market". 

Watch out for more updates. Meanwhile tell your own version of events.

Edited by editor - 18 Nov 2009 at 12:42pm

Author	Message / View First Unread Post Share Topic Printable Version Delicious Digg Facebook Furl Google MySpace Newsvine reddit StumbleUpon Translate Twitter Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic
editor Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Admin Group Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 22	Post Options Post Reply Quote editor Report Post Quote Reply Topic: Views on the Green Issue - 35 years ago? Posted: 15 Nov 2009 at 2:44am
	Having re-read "Global Reach - The Power of Multinational Corporations" by Richard J. Barnet & Ronald E. Muller - published in 1974 - I was amazed to find the same lame approach to 'Pollution' then as it was called, as we are hearing for today's 'Climate-Change' or 'Global Warming' 35 years on. I guess progress is slow in the corporate chambers when ass does not get kicked hard enough. I will be bringing you snippets of the equally nonsensical solutions that were being put forward then - where the cost burden was destined to be picked up by the citizen directly and indirectly through government responsibility to take action. I guess it could be interesting for those who have not yet reached 40? The major creators of pollution will pay a minimal price (as has always been the case) for their past careless approach to toxic waste. Just a beginning - " In 1970, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler accepted a consent decree which in effect admitted that they had conspired for 17 years to keep anti-pollution devices off the market". Watch out for more updates. Meanwhile tell your own version of events. Edited by editor - 18 Nov 2009 at 12:42pm

ArtWebster Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Visit Members Homepage Add to Buddy List Moderator Group Joined: 03 Sep 2009 Location: Spain Online Status: Offline Posts: 16	Post Options Post Reply Quote ArtWebster Report Post Quote Reply Posted: 27 Nov 2009 at 2:21pm
	Going green? Let's talk about the much vaunted international efforts to reduce carbon emmissions. This is very creditable, I think everybody will agree, but why was the system of carbon credits introduced? Is it so beyond the wit of those who claim to act on our behalf to impose statutory levels of reduction that have to be achieved that they also have to build in a safety belt? Apart from the obvious capital gains issue, why should a country that has managed to reduce emmissions by more than the level imposed be able to sell the excess reduction to another country so that it doesn't even need to try? Carbon credits are an indication of just how seriously this issue is being taken - not at all!
	a.k.a. The Old Coot To argue is to share an alternative point of view. To disagree without a valid argument is futile. http://www.costadelsol.mylocalgazette.com http://www.costa-classified-ads.com