And what about the fact that living “sustainably”, atleast in the western context is something that many countries simply cannot afford? what comes to mind are these african nations that are the products of colonialism and the industrial revolution.

These countries inhabitants spend their time and money just trying to keep the general population at/above the poverty level. Furthermore, since government is always corrupt because people run it money will always outweigh common sense, whether its a western society or not.
Our government knows this and has factions that are moving toward designing “greener” buildings/ways of life but incentives are a long way off. And don’t be naive to the fact that companies are profiting big time off of these sustainable technologies in the mean time. They are the oil companies of tomorrow.
Besides this none of the candidates have talked much about what they will actually do to make our living situations viably (realistically) sustainable.

as an architect I have a responsibility to do my part, so in a sense it is up to the individual. However, I wonder about when the “craze” associated with this resurgence of radical environmentalism calms. What decisions will our government put in place to make our lives better. If you ask me, too much focus on nature, and not human nature, no point in saving the environment if theres no people around to enjoy it.
P.S theres some truth to that volcano theory too, i mean just think about that if the earth can clean up after a volcano….

The U.S. Government does hold large tracts of land, that is true. The fact of the matter is that most of this land is too poor for anyone to desire to develop it. A great example of this is the Ozarks region which is practically devoid of habitation (compared to surrounding more fertile lands) because of its steep grades and rocky slopes. It is also interesting to note that the homestead act is still in effect with regards to most government owned lands, which supports that most undeveloped lands are that way because few people really want to live there. As far as the oil industry is concerned the subsidies need to stop. I propse that instead of subsidizing them to drill in the inaccssable regions of the world we let them develop known reserves in ANWR, as well as off the west and east coasts of the united states. This would provide american jobs that pay well, provide energy security and lower costs to the consumer. As I am sure that an outcry will follow this about the environment rest assured that federal regulations make it far too expensive for any oil company to mess around with the environment. I support Ron Paul because he is not beholden to special interests, and so is the only one who might actually be able to fight them in washington.

To Eric:
I have a small government bias only because our founding fathers had it too. I think they were pretty smart guys and helped to set the foundation for the best country in the world. I think it would be well to read their writings and take heed of them. I’m not sure on my stance on the good of National Forest stuff because I’m not all read up on the topic but I would be most likely be inclined to take agree with whatever the Ludwig von Mises Institute has to say about it. You are right in that the US exports a lot of its pollution to China in the form of importing China’s manufactured goods. You’re right that the government is too big, I heartily agree. You’re also right that the government doesn’t follow its own EPA regulations. For that matter when does it ever follow its own rules? Ever seen a cop speeding on the highway? You’re right that our “policing the world” policy will ultimately suck up all our resources and fail. I think you’ve stayed on topic, lol. So I think we’ve pretty well painted the picture here that the federal government is mostly irresponsible. It would be quite hypocritical of the government to punish its own citizens by regulation and tax for its own pollution mistakes and the mistakes of other countries around the world. As Reagan once said, the government is not the solution.

Thank you for the fun, I love the discussion, but since I can’t go on forever this should be my last post on this topic.

The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://video.google.com/url?docid=4429075964350352012&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=global+warming+swindell&vidurl=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DPXc9H5JSyow&usg=AL29H22KB18KdwGue6-uquTm30aTiZ6YJw

PLEASE HELP SUPPORT RON PAUL FOR PRESEDENT GOTO http://www.pledgebank.com/RonPaul2008 TO PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT TODAY

As Jeff pointed out, however, there is still room for government incentives to accelerate this trend. And we must consider that concern for the environment is only possible to the degree that we are affluent. Poor countries (like Mongolia, where I currently live), are consumed with survival and do not, in general, share the same concern for the environment. This is true for much of Asia, although I see signs of greening in China as its economy leaps forward.

In this period between poverty and wealth, government policies are vital for preserving the environment and limiting carbon emissions. Coal will continue to be a major fossil fuel in most countries for at least the next couple of decades. The only way to mitigate its effects is to install cleaner, more expensive plants. Industry will not do this unless it is profitable to do so.

Concern for the environment occupies one of the higher levels on Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs.” We in the West have the luxury of worrying about it, but it is not that way everywhere … yet.