Politicians generally have very little in the way of vision and understanding. So it is a warming (apologies for the pun) experience to see not one but three governments - those of France, Germany and Britain - attempting to make a continuous review of biodiversity a standing program for advising the present governments. Assuming that no government ever gets as corrupt as the Bush Administration when it comes to environmental sciences (that is, outright denial and suppression of anything that conflicts with their own personal financial interests), this should improve the decision making process in Europe on these matters, and stand out as an example and a resource for politicians with a modicum of responsibility elsewhere.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
On Monday night last, Jason Grossman, a philosopher form the Australian National University rang me with an idea. He was coming to my university to give a talk entitled "How to Feyerabend", arguing that Feyerabend was a dadaist rather than an anarchist. I'd tell you more about his talk, but I can'…
By Joel TicknerÂ
The European Union (EU) recently issued new regulations requiring chemical firms to develop health and environmental data on chemicals used to make everyday products and provide reasonable assurances of safety. What a novel concept. The sad truth is that it is.  Despite the…
One of the many ancillary tasks associated with my job that I wish I was better at is the advising of students. More specifically, the advising of students who aren't like I was at that age.
What I mean by that is that when I was a student, I didn't need to be convinced of the utility of liberal…
Several environmental advocacy groups are asking the US State Department to launch an investigation over the State Department's handling of the Keystone XL review.
This is a bit nuanced but important, and I want to make clear what is going on here.
Normally, environmental impact assessments are…
Well...et tu? During the last U.S. election cycle I pretty much abandoned most of the more entertaining (and oft informative) SciBlog authors since the leftist lockstep positions on NOT-SCIENCE topics were nothing I couldn't get word-for-word from my national media (That should be 'nuf-said'!). I have still been able to actually learn things, however, from those too few who were not U.S. born-and-raised. Now, a non-yank joins the home-grown "I have never seen a quote by Dan Rather that didn't strike me as absolute reviled truth" crowd with your "corrupt" and "personal financial interests" paranoid positions. Again, even if you are right, squatting and offering your "in-depth-analysis" is not what I hope to find in SciBlogs. Controversy does not really disturb me - I work at a University - unsupported drivel leads me, however, to try to find those too too few who seem to stay on topic and actually offer me something that they have been trained in.
Meh. You believe what you like, but if you can't look at this administration and see a science-denying corrupt administration, irrespective of one's political affiliations (and I am more conservative than leftist in many ways), then you don't know the meaning of the word "corrupt".
Who is Dan Rather?
AnotherRoy:
Maybe you should follow the Waxman hearing to get a feel for how "corrupt ... the Bush Administration [has been] when it comes to environmental sciences". Meanwhile while we in the USA do nothing, the EU is taking reduction in greenhouse gasses seriously and, as John reports here, looking at biodiversity.