Borrowing money from China to give to China is a telling point. I say ouch! to you.
The Chinese limiting population to one child per family and for the most part doing so successfully has helped them address the same set of problems from the other side, however: less pressure on scarce resources such as food and water overall. I think that in terms of negotiations with the Chinese, it's probably smart not to make a large thing of this, since we do want them to cut pollution and various other emissions that really need to be regulated.
We do cough from Chinese sulfur, I think, and suffer from Chinese nitrous oxide, and have to deal with Chinese acid rain. At the same time, we drown in a wave of cheap chinese goods that have put our own guys out of work. We ought to insist that they at least pay to not kill us with chemicals so we can continue to pay them interest on the money we owe them on the jobs we exported in the first place.
If they paid the cost of the clean up, we'd have to pay a fair price for the goods. Maybe we wouldn't buy so many of theirs and would buy more of our own.
Confused enough for you? My head's spinning.
We do have to do things to change the ecological problems around.
Your question about what, however, seems off the mark. We are already doing things. We have deregulated lots of stuff that should be regulated, and raised the levels of many pollutants that we already know to be harmful, including, if you'll remember from the early Bush years, levels of arsenic in drinking water. We did these things at the behest of industries who felt they were being held back by what they felt were unnecessary regulation.
Do you remember this the same way that I do?
Perhaps your memory is different, and it would be useful to get your perception in here as well.
But in 2007 that noted singing group, The Supremes, decided that the EPA had the authority without congress to regulate the levels of these things without checking with congress. There was not complaint at the time from congress that I recall, nor prom the presidency, though there is now from the GOP now that they are in the minority position and it appears that the EPA must act to restore the deregulated or poorly regulated levels of these toxic chemicals to safe levels. It was the GOP's Supreme's, by and large, by the way, that seems to have set the rules, and now it's the GOP in congress that's doing the complaining.
The GOP, it seems, wants the industrial base to have the freedom to kill, poison and maim the population at large in what the GOP deems to be the best interests of . . . the population at large. In the opinion of the GOP.
So, here's my proposition:
We take an environmental proposal that clearly did not work.
In this case, that would be deregulating or underregulating stuff that is clearly poison to the population at large, and has be ajudged be so by a supreme court essentially chosen by the Republican party, who has given power to a government agency to use power to change the situation.
We then re-regulate those poisons.
We also establish benchmarks for seeing if the changes make any difference.
We fight about the benchmarks after we do the regulation, so that they don't prevent the regulations from going in place.
We make a list of other poisons we wish to regulate, and a set of dates they will be banned. We offer the option of benchmarks to judge how successful those actions will be, and offer the option of them being put into place before the ban, though not having any affect on whether or not the ban actually takes place.
The objectivity of the benchmarks will be judged by scientists noted for their objectivity and indifference to politics.
The continued ban of these chemicals will be decided by how well the chemicals do against the benchmarks.
There you have at least a proposal.
If the road to wherever is paved with good intentions, as you've pointed out, with all good intentions, in your last post, I would counter with the fact that in terms of the difficulties in my proposal, the road to heaven is paved with doubts and uncertainties.
Your suggestion simply keeps people from budging at all.
Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Merry Christmas, to you, and Happy New Year as well.