Dow vs. Parody 363
tres3 writes "I stumbled across this item on Wired about Verio cutting off The Thing's Internet access after seven years of service. It seems that The Yes Men have upset DOW Chemical with their parody press release concerning a poison gas leak at the Union Carbide plant (now owned by Dow) in Bhopal, India, in 1984, that killed thousands. It was posted by RTMark.com, one of hundreds of customers (mostly artists and political activists) of The Thing, but has gone missing following the DMCA claims by DOW. Some European sites are now hosting the site here and here (slightly different). What really sent me into orbit was Dow's response to all of this. While writing this submission I noticed that I have become a victim of The Yes Men and "Dow's" response is actually one of their parodies! :-) The story is still valid but the only thing I could find that really came from DOW was the DMCA complaint (pdf) to Verio. To add insult to injury (and death (pun intended)) Dow has committed a reprehensible act, even for corporate America, by suing the survivors for ten years of income ($10,000) for protesting Dow's failure to clean up the mess. Greenpeace has set up a site for you to protest this action." We did an earlier story on this.
Their Thing? (Score:2, Funny)
Did anybody else read this as "Verio cutting off their Thing"?
I wonder if the framers of the constitution... (Score:4, Insightful)
Look up the history of. . . ` (Score:5, Interesting)
The framers of the Constitution knew damn well what corporations "would become." They had *already* become them.
Provisions were made in the Constitution and legislative law to deal with this issue. Great essays were written on the subject by learned minds such as Thomas Jefferson. 50 years later such matters were still uppermost in the minds of America's great social philosopher's, such as Thoreau.
Our forefather's weren't idiots, weren't ignorant and weren't "cavemen." Their world was, in many respects, "more like our own than our own."
Stock markets, insurance companies, leveraged buyouts and hostile takeovers, all done on a global scale, were already a century or more of old news before the first shot of the revolution was fired on the green at Lexington.
For God's sake man, Jefferson and Adams were *lawyers* and had actually participated in such actions. They learned their loathing of them first hand.
So what went wrong?
Well, let me put it to you this way. Do *you* still do business with these large corporations, giving them the money and power to buy law? Traded a little freedom for luxury items and security maybe?
I forget who it was, but an ancient historian, commenting on the aculturation of the Britons under Roman rule, wrote something along these lines:
"And so, the gullible natives, eventually came to call their slavery "culture.""
Ring any bells close to home?
That's the problem with republicanism, don't you see. The problems start at the top, more often than not, but *responsibiltiy* always, always, alway, falls to the bottom.
People don't want responsibility. They want a Big Mac while bopping to the latest Brittney Spears "tune."
KFG
Re:Look up the history of. . . ` (Score:5, Interesting)
Tacitus, Agricola [aol.com] (hagiography of his father-in-law, a Roman governor of Britain), s.21.
Re:Look up the history of. . . ` (Score:2)
Make sure you put a TM after that word "tune", lest you get in trouble by the RIAA.
I was going to, but. . . (Score:3, Funny)
KFG
good points, but not entirely true (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't entirely true. Large-scale corporations (the size of Hudson Bay or East Indian, which were exceptions) didn't really emerge until the late 1800's.
Another note is the fundamental disconnect in power between management and shareholder. Certainly businesses started with owners that "hired hands" to run the place. But eventually (WW2 and beyond) management rose as a distinct discipline and practice. Management held a tremendous amount of what could be almost called "illegitimate" power.. that is, until the backlash of hostile takeovers of the 1970's and 80's. Hostile takeovers before this time were quite rare... and it's really what started the whole "maximize shareholder value" fad we hear about today -- if you don't keep your stock price up, you'll get raided.
Re:I wonder if the framers of the constitution... (Score:3, Informative)
companies, corporations were given all of the rights that hitherto had been assigned only to individuals via the Bill of Rights. Until that time, the rights and abilities of
corporations were highly restricted, in great part because Jefferson, Madison and Franklin
were all quite aware of what would happen if corporations did gain these rights. In many ways the original Revolutionary war was a corporate war - much of the exploration of the
American colonies was carried out by corporations that were looking for a cheaper source of raw materials and a captive market for their goods. When the American revolutionaries began to fight back, it was these same corporations that paid for the British troops, ships, and armaments, because they saw the actions as being harmful to their corporate interests.
Re:I wonder if the framers of the constitution... (Score:5, Interesting)
Forcing a number of (presumably) individuals with something to say off the web with the stroke of a pen doesn't seem totalitarian to you? Due process isn't even an option due to the cost.
Re:I wonder if the framers of the constitution... (Score:2)
Mabye it's because the term "corporate person" is an oxymoron.
Re:I wonder if the framers of the constitution... (Score:5, Insightful)
To be defamation, or more precisely, libel Dow would have to show false facts. What are the false facts that have been published?
Second it is not false representation. Parody by nature requires one to create an image of what you are making parody of. To be fraud, they must be attempting to get something of value.
Asking a court to restrict someone's right or penalize someone for their speech is an infringment of the first amendment. Using the threat os this should also be considered the same.
Re:I wonder if the framers of the constitution... (Score:5, Insightful)
OMFG (Score:5, Funny)
There was the group, and we'll give them some forgettable name, and they did some stuff, and DMCA, and ow what hit me, the end.
Re:OMFG (Score:4, Funny)
Re:OMFG (Score:2)
These types of stories need MORE publicity (Score:4, Insightful)
It is absolutely vital to the continued existence of the internet as a medium of free speech that large corporations are NOT allowed to squelch opinions that do not cast them in a favorable light.
There is, however, a place where the line should be drawn. When creators of parody sites or critical sites start publishing people's real life names, home addresses, and other personal information against their will, then they have gone to far. At that point, they are putting actual people and their families at risk. When you create a parody or critical web site, you do not know what kind of people will visit the site. Some of the people who visit the site may be very unstable individuals capable of all sorts of terrible things. For a host of reasons, they might decide to utilize the personal information in order to cause real physical harm to the person being criticised or that person's family.
Perhaps the web site riled up their anger, or perhaps they thought the site was so amusing that they want to "thank" the creators by going out and causing real harm to the targets of the web site. This kind of stuff DOES happen folks, so don't blow it off as mere paranoia.
The reason I even bring up this issue is because of this part of the article:
> "We even put down James Parker's real home
> address! Very funny, right? Yes! Funny!"
> the Yes Men said in a statement.
Actually no, that is not funny. The only funny part about that was that James Parker was able to seize the domain name by presenting his drivers license and proof that he was the James Parker in question.
> "But on Dec. 4, James Parker himself, with the
> help of a team of Dow lawyers, sent a Xerox of
> his driver's license and a letter by FedEx to
> Gandi.net, saying, basically, "This domain
> belongs to me. See, that's my home address,
> too. Give it to me!"
>
> According to rules established by the Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers --
> an organization responsible for, among other
> chores, Internet address disputes -- Parker was
> correct and Gandi.net had no legal choice but
> to hand over Dow-Chemical.com to James Parker.
That part I find absolutely hilarious =).
So while it is absolutely IMPERATIVE that governments and corporations NOT be allowed to squelch parody sites or sites that are critical of their behavior, it is equally important that the creators of such sites be prevented from distributing personal information about individuals.
The dangers inherent in the former put our freedoms at risk, just as the dangers inherent in the latter put lives at risk.
Re:These types of stories need MORE publicity (Score:4, Interesting)
Isn't it James Parker's actions that put him and his family (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!) at risk?
What you are suggesting is - effectively - that those with power and influence must be protected from the consequences of their own actions. Does anything strike you as wrong with that?
Re:These types of stories need MORE publicity (Score:2)
That ability is not threatened at all by this. What is threatened is the ability to try to deceive people so as to mislead them about a company or government.
These sites were not parody sites. They were trying to confuse people into thinking they were Dow's site, and are using the claim of parody to try to hide their attempted identity theft.
Do not pass go, do not collect $200 (Score:3, Insightful)
Even the
Yeah, Dow was a little underhanded to make the phone call after business hours, but The Thing could have blocked that trick simply by having a 24/7 answering service and an admin with a beeper. It's hard for them to try to claim that they aren't responsible for striking a website when they are told that what the site owners are doing is against the law, and I don't see why doing exactly what they were doing should be legal.
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect $200 (Score:2)
While some (most?) of us could probably tell that it was a parody anyway (or at least be suspicious that it was), we're in the minority here. It needs to be obvious to the layperson.
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect $200 (Score:5, Insightful)
If corporations have free speech, why can't the Yes Men? Honestly, what's the worse crime - poisoning a couple thousand people, or impersonating someone who isn't even a person?
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect $200 (Score:3, Insightful)
Free speech does not give you the right to say whatever you want and damned be the consequences. It doesn't work that way.
Honestly, what's the worse crime - poisoning a couple thousand people, or impersonating someone who isn't even a person?
Ah, the classic "But they started it!" defense. That always works so well in the courts.
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect $200 (Score:2)
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect $200 (Score:2)
If you want the courts to step in here based on the "some people will be fooled" line, that is a very slippery slope.
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect $200 (Score:2)
A "just kidding" notice on The Onion (Score:2)
"The Onion is a satirical weekly publication published 47 times a year on Thursdays."
Also on the same page:
"The Onion uses invented names in all its stories, except in cases where public figures are being satirized. Any other use of real names is accidental and coincidental."
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect $200 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect $200 (Score:2)
Nope, you read that wrong. I don't care who did it first, what I care about is what is being done.
Free speech does not give you the right to say whatever you want and damned be the consequences. It doesn't work that way.
It doesn't? If it carries consequences, then it ain't free speech. If that were the definition of free speech, then hey, you have a lot of free speech in, say, china. You can say whatever you want. They might kill you for it, but that's just the consequences, so it's still free speech, right?
Is that how you want it to work?
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect $200 (Score:2)
Is that how you want it to work?"
What the parent means is that you do not have the right to commit slander, libel, etc. Let's think of what absolute free speech means:
-no perjury laws (or you wouldn't have free speech on the bench)
-you can incite illegal actions--such as telling someone to kill someone--without reproach
-you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre, probably leading to injuries an property damage and certainly leading to lost revenue for the theatre owner, and not be responsible even if it is just a prank
This is not what the founding fathers and other governmental people intended when they wrote ratified the first amendment. They were trying to protect against censoring speech because of political messages. While parodies are of course protected, they cease to be protected when they cross the line to fradulent misrepresentation, and the Yes Men arguably did with their parody and certainly did when they sent links to journalists claiming that they represent Dow and were issuing a press release.
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect $200 (Score:2)
Clearly the poisoning is worse... but two wrongs never make a right.
Re:Another vote against "The Yes Men" (Score:2)
The "parody" site is deliberately misleading, and downright offensive. When I looked for at least a disclaimer, I find instead "Copyright © The Dow Company." The entire site appears to be structured similarly. This insults our intelligence. What, the critics' argument aren't good enough to stand alone? We won't appreciate it unless fooled?
The only reason I was studying the site for hints was the warning I received in advance. Their domain name dowethics adds nicely to the fakery -- certainly it is a plausible name for a corporation to operate.
Parody can be protected speech, but not automatically. Impersonation and falsehood are not protected -- else it would be impossible to prosecute con men. Here, it doesn't even matter if they're telling the truth -- they can't pretend to be Dow. No brainer.
Re:You have to be joking (Score:2)
Corporate Freedom of Speech .... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yet according to Dow's press release, Corporate Freedom of Speech is one of our most precious Freedoms [dowethics.com].
Obviously it's one of those freedoms that nobody except Dow talks about. (In fact, many of the google links are about Dow.)
Of course, the troubling part is that obviously it's more important than `generic' Freedom of Speech. At least according to Dow.
Their press release alone reads like a parody. I really hope it is. And if it's not, I hope they get spanked hard for it.
Re:Corporate Freedom of Speech .... (Score:2)
Had I just found it by itself, I'd have attributed it to parody (I did mention that it reads like a parody, after all), but the /. story *said* it was from Dow --
and I took that at it's word. Perhaps I should have made a New Years Resolution to not take people I don't know at their word, especially when it just looks wrong.Which makes it a very good parody indeed -- not just from The Yes Men, but also from the user `michael' on Slashdot. He told us that this was from Dow, and since we're all ready (me too) to believe that the mighty Corporation is out to get us, I believed him, even though it was somewhat absurd.
Let's hope that Dow doesn't get *too* sue-happy over this -- now they could go after michael too.
I don't see where the DMCA comes into play here, but there's still plenty of other things that Dow could use to make The Yes Men and michael's life unpleasant.
Re:Corporate Freedom of Speech .... (Score:2)
Perhaps you should have made a New Year's Resolution to raise your reading comprehension.
Especially since you somehow think michael told you anything was from Dow, when the Slashdot article clearly states that tres3 was the writer... the only portion not quoted from tres3 is the last seven words: "We did an earlier story on this."
Re:Corporate Freedom of Speech .... (Score:2)
I went after the bold stuff. A simple enough mistake. Still, I'd suggest changing the format ... what's more important -- that michael posted this, or tres3 actually wrote it?
My reading comprehension is fine, when I apply it properly. A better resolution would be to remember to double (and triple) check everything before I make silly mistakes in public. I've made a few so far, and the year is only a few hours old :)
Re:Corporate Freedom of Speech .... (Score:2)
That's a fairly standard quotation format, attributing the quoted text to tres3. It's similiar to an article in a newspaper quoting things from a Associated Press article.. the newspaper writer didn't write the quoted bits.
'sides, your user number isn't all that far away from mine.. you should be used to the format around here by now!
But, did you know the net is only for commerce? (Score:5, Interesting)
What gets me here is that, get this, from Dow's own web site: Yep, that's right, sports fans. If you serve no commercial purpose, you have no right to exist. Such corporate arrogance is horrid. In true W-esque fashion, unless you consume, you're worthless. What do these guys want? Web sites for companies only? What a yawn that would be. Remember the article a while back, noting that the web has been growing in capabilities and innovation not by big corporate bozo's but by, yep, web porn. We may not like it, but those sleazy guys are the ones Dow can sell fiber in the first place!
Lastly, I am so pleased to have Dow no inform me as to the unproductive analysis and critique that Thing.net was providing. Before, I considered it merely satire or commentary. Now I see what it truly was . . . a communist plot to keep Dow from cleaning our water and preserving our precious bodily fluids. Thanks Dow!
Re:But, did you know the net is only for commerce? (Score:5, Insightful)
good times.
Re:But, did you know the net is only for commerce? (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, that is not from 'Dow's own web site'. It's from a site that is set up to look almost exactly like one sponsored, maintained or supported by DOW. It's not. It's an example of parody gone too far. There doesn't even seem to be a disclaimer about the entire site being parody.
The original post does however mention that the submitter was fooled as you were. It seems you did a good job and RTFA, but should have spent a little more time to RTFP more carefully.
Re:But, did you know the net is only for commerce? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, no. The above quotations are from DOW Ethics.com [dowethics.com], which is obviously one of the parody sites.
I say obviously, because I do not for one hot second think that anyone here can or should defend DOW Chemical in this matter. Yes, The Onion is an obvious parody, but not because of the disclaimers or the site design, but because of the content. And don't pull out your tired and elitist "Joe Average" arguments, because Joe Average is probably not surfing the DOW chemical websites anyway. Those sites are for investors and business types and if they aren't smart enough to tell when they are being had, well, fuck 'em.
These are very strange times we live in today, and strange times call for strange measures. Yes, the parody people took some extreme steps (ripping off corporate design, registering similar domain names) but that's what it might take to get attention. And it certainly did get some attention, now didn't it? How many of you would even be thinking about the policies and procedures of DOW chemicals today if it weren't for this story? Probably three of you. Certainly not me, I'm nursing a headache from lack of sleep.
This is interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)
However, with that being said. Your ISP doesn't necessarily have to put up with that. They also have a right to decide what content they will host on their servers. If they take offense at your postings or bow to pressure from a corporation or the government, that's well within their right.
They run a business. Just because you want to take a risk with something you choose to write. Doesn't meant they have to take the risk with you.
Re:This is interesting... (Score:2)
Re:This is interesting... (Score:2)
Re:This is interesting... (Score:2)
Re:This is interesting... (Score:2)
You miss the point - they didn't take the site down (a customer of theirs for many years) because they wanted to, they took it down because they were forced to after being hit with the DMCA. The safe harbor provisions in the DMCA makes them take it down, or be sued themselves. To me this all equals web censorship. Whether the site is right or wrong, there were other ways Dow could have approached this - they went for the 'Let's silence our enemy' tactic.
The Yes Men could be at fault (Score:5, Interesting)
In the case of the "Yes Men" the attempt seems to be using parody and satire to effect social activism. This, in itself, is not a bad or uncommon thing. However, if one is going to do this, one has to make sure the creation is actually satire.
The main tool that they use on the web appears to be 'Reamweaver', a tool to copy a website and modify in small ways. From the Reamweaver website we have .
Reamweaver has everything you need to instantly "funhouse-mirror" anyone's website, copying the real-time "look and feel" but letting you change any words, images, etc. that you choose.
and
Use Reamweaver for fun, or, if you like, for lots of fun... by obtaining speaking opportunities on behalf of your adopted organization. Here's how to that:
1. (Optional) Register a domain not too different from your target's domain - e.g. we-forum.org, world-economic-forum.com, wtoo.org, rncommittee.org
2. Put Reamweaver on your domain.
3. Tell search engines about your domain.
4. When invitations arrive, accept them!
This does not seem to a tool conducive to satire. This appears to be a tool that is to be used to misrepresent, decieve, and ultimately allow an individual to go into the community as the perceived representative of the company under attack.
Social activism is good. Trying to create a better world is good. However, when you invite a person from Dow Chemical to your office, one would expect that the person is actually from dow chemical. Furthermore, I am not sure I would equate the Reamweaver technique to a person who registers a slightly misspelled domain name and then puts up tons of pop ups and installs viruses when some unsuspecting visitors accidently hits the site.
I understand that the intention of the Yes Men are probably just. I understand that they are probably good people,. However, copying someone else's website and representing it as your own is not good. It is one thing to rip other artists CDs for personal use. It is another thing to rip those CDs and then sell the copies. It is yet another thing to rip those CDs change a few seconds, and then represent the tracks as your own. What they are doing might be peaceful disobendience. It does not seem to be satire
Re:The Yes Men could be at fault (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:The Yes Men could be at fault (Score:2)
Re:The Yes Men could be at fault (Score:2)
Re:The Yes Men could be at fault (Score:2)
Didja all catch... (Score:5, Insightful)
A bunch of women marched on DOW HQ in India, delivering some of the contanimated soil and water from Bhopal. The protest lasted two peaceful hours. A single DOW employee greeted them.
DOW is now suing them for the equivalent of US$10K -- a helluva lot of money, particularly in India -- for "lost wages" because of the "work disruption."
Disgusting. First they slaughter hundreds and thousands of employees and families through cost-cutting, undertraining, and poor plant maintenance; then they refuse to clean up the mess; then they sue the very people who were hurt by the accident.
Sometimes it would be e'er so nice to be able to punish CEOs as if they'd committed the crimes themselves.
Re:Didja all catch... (Score:2)
Of course, you have to wonder what part the Indian govt. had to do with all this. I mean, they closed the case in '91 or whenever it was and stated that they thought it was fair.
Dow's corporate free speech thing is a load of garbage. However, one has to wonder, even tho they aren't the best, they bought someone else that did something and i'm not sure how i feel about them having to do deal with it. On the other hand, it only seems natural and a way to make them look like they really do care if they went in and pre-emptively made things better..
But of course, they is rarely the case for any global entity.
Re:Didja all catch... (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting point about the Indian government, though.
Re:Didja all catch... (Score:2)
Re:Didja all catch... (Score:2, Interesting)
2> Dow Chemical purchases Union Carbide plant.
3> Dow Chemical CEO should pe bunished for the accident.
What are you smoking to get that conclusion from the first two events?
Yes, its horrible that people were injured and died as a result of the industrial accident. Its pretty rotten to sue the victims and their families for disrupting work.
Its disturbing that idiots will personal harm to the officers and representatives of Dow for an accident which occured at a plant BEFORE THEY OWNED IT.
Even so, holding a CEO responsible for every occurance involving every job site is insane. In cases where the CEO had prior knowledge, sure, but making the assumption that every officer of every company knows every detail of business in a company employing tens of thousands worldwide is laughable.
It may look a lot nicer on your 5 o'clock news to see corporate officer Joe hauled away in handcuffs, but it doesn't satisfy justice pinning everything on just the officers. Justice is satisfied by the prosecution of the offenders. Those who commited crimes, or exercised -unreasonable- negligence.
Re:Didja all catch... (Score:2)
That b*d should be hung by his feet. Low over an anthill.
Re:Didja all catch... (Score:4, Interesting)
Half of the "informative" posts on this article cite anti-Dow hoaxes as "facts," and use them to justify their opposition to Dow's attempts to suppress hoaxes. If that doesn't prove libel, I don't know what could.
(Having said that, I can't see what any of this has to do with the DMCA. But hey, libel cases are expensive. Why bother suing, when you can just say the magic words and make any website dissappear?)
Re:Didja all catch... (Score:2)
"peaceful protest" (Score:4, Insightful)
From reading between the lines of the article, it appears that they are suing the protesters, and not all the survivors, for what sounds like an irresponsible protest rather than a peaceful one. If someone showed up at my company's door with deadly chemicals, we'd have to shut the place down for security reasons, at a cost to the business.
Dow may be wrong or negligent in compensating the survivors, but protesters causing a business to loose money to gain their attention or try and get them to change their action is about as effective as spanking a child when they don't eat their peas. They're just going to grow up hating those that spank them.
Re:"peaceful protest" (Score:3, Insightful)
However, Dow is dumping those same chemicals on somebody else's doorstep. They're just being nice enough to return them for analysis...
DOW didn't do anything wrong; however... (Score:2)
Frankly, I'd hardly call delivering TOXIC WASTE to a public place a "peaceful protest". I never really liked Greenpeace, and this reminds me why.
So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
I am truly disgusted (Score:2)
It is this kind of thing that breeds terrorists and whips up frenzy amongst people who have no recourse to medical care, much less fat corporate lawyers.
I can't carry on because I am absolutely speechless with disgust at those fucking bastards.
Re:I am truly disgusted (Score:2)
Greenpeace has their own spin, but. as has been stated by others here, Dow probably had to spend money to clean up the chemicals the protestors brought with them, etc.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Did those protestors think about how they were spreading the environmental impact by collecting chemicals from one location and potentially contaminating another? Or just about what good press they would get?
Which ones? The ones who, having made a mistake, half-assedly tried to clean it up and then abandoned their work, or the ones deliberately trying to cause (or at least threaten) environmental harm not only to the culprit but to anyone nearby?
I'm disgusted by Greenpeace's role in this. They've figuratively gone from trying to block Japanese whalers to dragging whale carcasses into a city and leaving them in front of a building where the whalers have offices, not caring that it's a public street and others would have to clean up their mess.
The protesters' attitudes might have been summarized by "they messed up our backyard, let's mess up theirs," but where does that lead, except to two messed up backyards?
Play a little devils advocate. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't really know why the copyright violations in this are DMCA, it seems that normal copyright and trademarks cover thier violations, and yes they are violations. They were before DMCA and still will be if the DMCA is repealed. Though this should not have forced the whole site down, just the removeal of the copyrighted/trademarked images (hey, make some parody version of them - that's legal, but you can't just copy thier images and pretend to be them). Plus they quote cybersquatting statutes, they don't really seem to be cybersquatting (though using dow-chemical is iffy on copyright, had they used something like dow-chemical-sucks they would have easily been in the parody/protest stuff, but they seemed to have intentionally tried to fool someone into thinking they were dow to get them there).
And lastly "Dow has committed a reprehensible act, even for corporate America, by suing the survivors for ten years of income ($10,000) for protesting Dow's failure to clean up the mess." No, even according to the greenpeace article the survivors carried contamited material to thier site - that's not legal. While I greatly sympathise with them (and definatly think they got screwed royally) that doesn't give you the right to do that. As neither does being rich give someone the right to pollute with impunity. Much like in the US many protestors seem to think that the first amendment gives them the right to trasspass and destroy property, it doesn't - gather on public land all you want, don't block traffic and not only are you legal but you garner much more sympathy.
In sum, they have a very legitimate complaint, dow chemical did some VERY bad stuff and deserve to be raped in court, and never have and probably never will. But that doesn't give you the right (in the US, or apparently india either) to do whatever you feel (eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth isn't in the constitution). Plus my final complaint is that we have only heard one side, greenpeace isn't really know for being exactly unbiased and giving complete stories. There are much more effective ways to try and get something, they failed, now all they do is make people much less sympathetic overall to their cause (maybe it makes them feel better though).
Re:Play a little devils advocate. (Score:2)
Re:Play a little devils advocate. (Score:2)
Anyone know of Indian newspapers?
How the DMCA got involved (Score:4, Insightful)
Where the DMCA kicks in is the takedown provisions. Dow called Verio and said "Get this off the Web now!" and Verio was required to honor that request. Verio tried calling The Thing, but they weren't available because they had shut down for the day and didn't leave anyway to contact anyone in control. Verio had no way to delete the site other than to pull their whole line, so they did.
Eventually The Thing pulled the illegal site, and Verio restored access. However, because The Thing caused this whole mess by not having somebody on call who could respond to the takedown demand, they downtime was theirs even though Verio is taking the blame. Verio has now decided they don't want to do business with The Thing anymore, because they don't like being blamed for their customer's inactions.
Dow's Responses (Score:5, Insightful)
The paid ~$500 million to the Indian Government for ongoing cleanup, to create a medical program for anyone who lives in the affected area, and to cover things like ongoing monitoring of the chemical creep. They also paid out an additional ~$20 million to build and maintain a new hospital specifically in the area to handle any related medical claims. They also added an additional ~$55 million dollars to the hospital support funds when they bought out UCI.
They actually have paid out far more than the lawsuits against them in US courts originally stated (where the Indian government received a ruling for ~$350 million). I think all told that Dow has produced over $600 million for cleanup and ongoing support and healthcare.
All in all, most of the cleanup, treatment and monitoring of chemical contamination in the area is supposed to be handled by the Indian Government, not by Dow directly. If those hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent somewhere else, are people asking the government (or whoever they've appointed to handle the situation) where it's going?
This is especially apt as many of the court cases have focused on Dow's liability, and the majority still uphold the 'reasonable doubt' that Dow was criminally liable (which is why they still haven't tried very hard to get Warren Anderson shipped their for homicide charges), and even some went so far as to support the findings of 3rd party teams that the chemical release was a result of a deliberate act by a disgruntled worker.
Now, it's been 18 years, and I don't personally have any knowledge of anything to do with Bhopal beyond what I can read. However, based on that information, I think a lot of this is the result of PR by Greenpeace and others who conveniently ignore the things that Dow *has* done.
As an aside, I don't work for Dow, have any relatives who work for Dow, or own stock in Dow (unless one of those pathetic 401k funds that are basically WORTHLESS right now has shares, in which case I don't give a damn). I just see a lot of knee-jerk reactions and wonder if a lot of people who 'know about bhopal' have ever done more than read 1 website or less? Could Dow be a tool of Satan designed to make life on Earth a living hell, run completely by unfeeling demons who want to kill and maim innocent people? Sure. Is it probably that black-and-white? I really doubt it. It's only fair to research both sides.
Re:Dow's Responses (Score:2, Informative)
I tend to agree with the above poster. I'm not usually one to defend a corporation, but it looks like Dow did make an awful lot of reparations. The actual truth of the matter, I'm sure, is obscured far beyond our ability to discern it, particularly by a few minutes of Googling. Cheers, Mike V.
Re:Dow's Responses (Score:2)
And none of this justifies suing the survivors for 10 years income because they protested. I don't care that DOW may have felt that the protest was unjust. It was no where near as unjust as the reaction. It makes me wish that the entire upper management of the corp would be taken out and mutilated. In a way that left them unable to speak coherently or feed themselves. Permanently.
If they can't understand that the survivors may be desperate, and that they have some responsibility for **EFFECTIVE** relief, then they can't be counted as humans. Yeah, they paid some money. So? Their responsibility wasn't to pay money, their responsibility was to ameliorate the damage that they had, at minimum, contributed to. (The safety standards by which the plant was operated were unconsciousable. Legal, I believe, and so *** what!)
Re:Dow's Responses (Score:3, Insightful)
Excellent post! I have little doubt that Greenpeace is once again playing fast and loose with the facts to further their political agenda against multinational corporations. It's just a shame that so many people buy into the notion that Greenpeace is an unbiased guardian when even one of the founders of the organization now says of it, "They're using environmental rhetoric to cloak agendas like class warfare and anti-corporatism that, in fact, have almost nothing to do with ecology."
And now the info in your post, if true, shows they're up to the same old tricks with Dow.
Yep, we do have to keep an eye on corporations and make a point to highlight grievous activity...that's what gave The Yes Men "parody" such legs. But we also need to keep an eye on activist groups like Greenpeace and be every bit as suspicious of their propaganda.
Whither Globalization? (Score:4, Insightful)
A negligent American company releases poisonous gases in a third-world country and kills or injures tens of thousands of (dark-skinned) people. You would think the world would be outraged.
No. Suddenly, Dow chemicals was no longer a global company - it was an American company, run by American citizens who are bound only by American laws! The Indians had to struggle very hard to bring these people to court - it is still not over, 18 years after the 'accident'.
Globalization is a wonderful thing, but only if all such aspects are dealt with. People tend to forget that free markets in countries like the USA work well only when the companies are governed by law and regulated by watchdog organizations. While the West aggressively pushes for global free markets, they don't seem to realize that there is no global law and no global watchdog or regulatory body.
What Dow chemicals did is an extremity, but there are many other simpler violations. Think about it - Coke sells cans in USA, among hundreds of other countries. That is great. But, how many of these countries have proper recycling facilities? Many third world countries are being pressurized by the world bank to open up to MNCs and are they are all becoming dumping grounds for these multi national companies. Heck, most of these countries don't even have proper drinking water for its population, but Coke and Pepsi are available everywhere!
UNION CARBIDE, NOT DOW!!! (Score:2)
** Dow bought Union Carbide 2 years ago. [bhopal.com] **
Dow is 100% liable for Union Carbide obligations, that comes with the purchase, but did not "kill" anybody at Bhopal in 1984 -- nearly 20 years ago.
Re:Whither Globalization? (Score:5, Insightful)
A negligent American company releases poisonous gases in a third-world country and kills or injures tens of thousands of (dark-skinned) people. You would think the world would be outraged.
Your comparison between Carbide and Hussein is morally bankrupt.
There is a very large difference between the negligence (if there was actual negligence) of Carbide and murderous intent of Saddam Hussein to commit genocide. Carbide certainly did NOT go out and say 'let's kill off a bunch of folks using MIC to cut down on these local protests'.
There is also the fact that the UCarbide plant in West Va, had problems with MIC accidents as well. The concept that Carbide was doing anything in India because it felt that Indians were less worthy than Americans is speculative, to say the least.
UC does bear a great deal of responsibility for what happened in India. But it was not genocide, murder, chemical warefare or any other such act. It was an unintended industrial accident of unprecidented impact.
Maybe UC was negligent in it's operations of the Bhopal plant - but the fact is that best practice standards then and now are two very different things. And the fact is that ultimately that local management of a chemical plant is in the best position to address safety issues. That local management must share a great deal of the responsibility for what happened, including ultimately the leaky valve that was the immediate cause of the accident. That local management was Indian.
Re:Whither Globalization? (Score:2)
What I am concerned about is why steps are not being taken by the advocates of globalization to ensure corporations and its executives are held responsible for its actions?
Why is Nike able to get away with sweat shops in Indonesia where people work in inhuman conditions?
Why are the other junk food companies are held responsible for the amount of garbage they generate?
Are there effective pollution checks in place all over the world, just like in the West?
Sure, most of the responsibility lies with that country itself. But, let's face it - some of these countries haven't even solved their basic problems of food and water yet!
In the place of corporate appeasement, if the West starts to have real capitalism, may be these things will be resolved. Till then, companies will use "globalization" as an excuse for circumventing wage laws, pollution control laws and consumer safety laws.
How many people... (Score:2)
This is the best part of DOW... (Score:2)
It's another example of our committment to Living. Improved Daily. With an internet shaped by Corporate Free Speech.
Just another example of some PR manager having his head too far up his ass.
Free Speech (Score:2)
A lot of people don't understand the concept, so I'll explain. Everyone in America can think of at least 10 good laws about speech that would improve society. I know I can. Ban hate speech, ban those psychic ball-gazing frauds, ban tobacco advertisements, and so on. And those would be good laws. In my opinion.
Unfortunately, everyone else has a different set of good laws for restricting speech. And I probably don't agree with most of them. The only way to come to agreement on how we restrict speech will therefore be through our elected officials.
The founders understood that. And they also understood that the government bodies they were setting up simply wouldn't be perfect enough to be trusted with making these kind of laws. For that reason they put up a fence around that area of the law. The First Ammendment establishes that the government can't make laws regarding speech, and that it can't make laws regarding religion. Sure, some good might be accomplished if the fence wasn't there, but eventually the damage would outweigh the good.
So everytime you see some piece of speech that you think shouldn't be allowed, restrain yourself. Don't call for it to be banned. The government isn't smart enough to be messing around in there. Protecting that speech protects your speech.
This is a good thing. (Score:2)
I sent a message to RTMark's ISP (The Thing), complaining about the message, and that it violated their Terms of Service. This isn't the first time that I have received spam from RTMark, or is it the first time that I have complained about it, and yet it had not stopped. If The Thing refused to do anything about it, or if they condoned it, then they are no better than a bunch of worthless spammers, and I'm glad that Verio cut them off.
My letter to Dow (Score:2)
And here's what I just sent them:
As the new CEO and President of Dow Chemical Company, I am stunned at your actions against the survivors of the Bhopal, India industrial tragedy. Dow has been a respected name in corporate America for so many years. But this incomprehensible treatment of the poor and sick, when you should be doing everything in your power to make things right, to offer aid and rebuilding, health care and clean up, changes my vision of Dow and its executives and my family and I have lost all respect.
Once again the almighty dollar rules a corporation rather than the fundamental care of the people who once supported it. It matters not that this incident occurred under Union Carbide, you knew this when you bought them.
You know quite well that if this had happened in the U.S., this would have been fixed by now. To attack a poor and innocent people, those that have lost many family and still struggle to survive, shows your true bully side. To think that you would do this because they dared to perform a peaceful protest is nothing more than shocking to me. Dow was always such a respected name.
When you add to that your treatment of the parody site Dow-chemical and the whole YesMen fiasco, to use such an ill-gotten law as the DMCA to silence the web and force the take down of not only a web site, but also an entire ISP is unfathomable. It shows that your new stance is to merely silence those who would dare stand up to you, and this is nothing more than a cartelish, mob mentality than can no longer have respect.
I implore you to correct this. To drop your charges against the poor and suffering of India, and to drop your charges against a parody web site, which under the US copyright law, it is perfectly legal to parody just about anything.
I have begun my march to inform those in my family and my place of work of your actions. Others are doing the same. Will you sue me too just to silence me?
I grew up with the name of Dow and have always believed it be an important and respected company. Unless these serious issues are corrected, I can no longer ignore the truth, nor can I think of Dow with any high regard.
Take note that I am writing this to you via the convience of the web. Yes, the Internet is a wonderful and rich thing which allows us to recieve such information and respond accordingly, even on New Year's Day. The DMCA does nothing but silence this information. But I include my own salutation, because I do not agree with the one built into this online form.
With utmost sincerity,
A very aware U.S. citizen-
(name here)
well.... (Score:2)
I never find myself on this side of the argument, but the only thing I see here which is not steaming troll meat is the Dow DMCA complaint, which is actually pretty reasonable. The owner of the dow-chemical domain is not named George Dow-Chemical, images and text WERE taken from the dow web site without their permission, and all of this was used to deceive the public as to the intents and actions of Dow.
One could actually make a pretty good argument that those opposed to the DMCA wish only to plagarize and deceive, based on the actions of these parodists. For this reason, I cannot support their efforts. Freedom of information is too important to me.
Re:well.... (Score:2)
I think you mean "make clear to the public the real intents and actions of Dow", don't you? That is the point of satire and I don't see any reason why mass murderers should be allowed to hide behind something as trivial as copyright laws to protect them from having their actions brought to larger attention.
TWW
Re:well.... (Score:2)
You misunderstand. I in no way oppose anyone saying anything. But saying something while misrepresenting yourself as the party you are attempting to criticize is cowardly and illegal.
Discussing the actions of Dow is one thing. Doing so with a domain name and web site format intended to deceive the viewer as to the source of the material is quite another.
I happen to agree with you with regard to the behavior of Dow, but giving the Dows of the world more ammunition to shut down public participation by clearly attemtpting to deceive the public is no way to effectively protest it.
Re:well.... (Score:2)
In what regard are these mass murderers? Certainly Dow had no involvement with or ability to alter the circumstances involving Bhopal befire the fact. And to be honest I really doubt that there are any people that were involved with the Bhopal incident still with UC at the time of its acquisition by Dow.
If you are talking about some form of corporate responsibility, well, yes. Certainly the UC of 1984 was responsible for this disaster. And they paid the price for it, both financial and in the courts of public opinion. Dow must continue to assume the liabilities associated with this as a corporation because of their acquisition of UC.
As for murder, I have my doubts that it applies in this case. Murder involves intent to kill somebody. Nobody has any evidence that anyone at UC said 'let's kill off a bunch of folks in India'. Calling this murder really shows that you have no interest in presenting the facts fairly.
A link to a Register Article about the issue. (Score:2, Informative)
Is this guy Related to Hitler? (Score:2)
Re:Is this guy Related to Hitler? (Score:3, Informative)
Dow complaint seems valid (Score:3, Insightful)
This organization is getting sued, too (Score:3, Interesting)
This owners of this web site, www.slaverready.com [slaverready.com] is also getting sued. Not for the content of the site but because the logo on the site supposedly infringes on Labor Ready's logo. What a bunch of BS.
You may not be able to fight city hall but you can't fight corporations without getting crushed.
Boycott Dow?? (Score:3, Informative)
If you want to get Dow's attention, tell people to stop buying their produ cts, and tell them why. At the end of Dow's 2001 financial report [dow.com], they have a partial list of Dow and associated company trademarks.
I peeled out that data, paired it with the company name, and then sorted the result.. If you want to boycott Dow products, these names would probably be a good start.
I'll also place a copy of this list on my website ( http://www.bcgreen.com/dow/trademarks.html [bcgreen.com]) where I can update it as necessary. (147 references so far).
damn lameness filters force reformatting.
Affinity :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Amerchol :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Aspun :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Betabrace :: Essex Specialty Products, Inc. :: Essex Specialty Products, Inc. | | Betafoam :: Essex Specialty Products, Inc. :: Essex Specialty Products, Inc. | | Betamate :: Essex Specialty Products, Inc. :: Essex Specialty Products, Inc. | | Blox :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Carbowax :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Confirm :: Dow AgroSciences LLC :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Cyracure :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: The Dow Chemical Company | | D.E.N. :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Daxad :: Hampshire Chemical Corp. :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Derakane Momentum :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Dow :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Dowfax :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Dowlex :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Dowtherm :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Dursban :: Dow AgroSciences LLC :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Emerge :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Ethafoam :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | FilmTec :: FilmTec Corporation :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Flexomer :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Fulcrum :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Gas/Spec :: INEOS plc :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Goal :: Dow AgroSciences LLC :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Great Stuff :: Flexible Products Company :: Hampshire Chemical Corp. | | Immotus :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Inspire :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Flexible Products Company | | Instill :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Integral :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Isonate :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | LP Oxo :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Lifespan :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Lontrel :: Dow AgroSciences LLC :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Magnum :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Maxistab :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Methocel :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Mustang :: Dow AgroSciences LLC :: Mycogen Corporation | | Neocar :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Optim :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Michelin North America, Inc. | | Papi :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Pellethane :: The Dow Chemical Company :: PhytoGen Seed Company | | Polyox :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Prevail :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Procite :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Quash :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Redi-Link :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: American Chemistry Council | | Retain :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Saran :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Sentricon :: Dow AgroSciences LLC :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Si-Link :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Spectrim :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Starane :: Dow AgroSciences LLC :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Strandfoam :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Styrofoam :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Styron A-Tech :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Dow Corning Corporation | | Synergy :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Tanklite :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Tergitol :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Thermax :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Tordon :: Dow AgroSciences LLC :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Treflan :: Dow AgroSciences LLC :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Triton :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Trymer :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Tyril :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | UCAT :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Ucartherm :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Unipol :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Unival :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Vikane :: Dow AgroSciences LLC :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Voralast :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Voranate :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Voranol Voractiv :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Solutia Inc. | | Woodstalk :: Dow BioProducts Ltd. :: The Dow Chemical Company
Amplify
Attane
Betadamp
Betaguard
Betaseal
Calibre
Cellosize
Covelle
D.E.H.
D.E.R.
Derakane
Dithane
Dowex
Dowflake
Dowper
Drytech
Elite
Envision
Ethocel
FirstRate
Fortress
Garlon
Glyphomax
Grandstand
Hamposyl
Insite
Insta-stik
Intacta
Intrepid
Isoplast
Lamdex
Liquidow
Lorsban
Maxicheck
Meteor
Mimic
Mycogen
Opticite
PAX System
Peladow
PhytoGen
Polyphobe
Primacor
Pulse
Questra
Responsible Care
Safe- Tainer
Saranex
Shac
SiLK
Spider
Stinger
Strongarm
Styron
Syltherm
Syntegra
Telone
The Enhancer
Tone
Tracer Naturalyte
Trenchcoat
Trycite
Tuflin
UCAR
UCON
Unigard
Unipurge
Versene
Voracor
Voralux
Voranol
Vydyne
Zetabon
Re:how is this different from the earlier story? (Score:2, Funny)
And then hope that either Timothy or ChrisD is on duty.
But, of course, I'm wrong and this is just trollish flamebait. And so in an effort not to get modded down let me add: I found this article to be insightful and informative. I particularly found the Greenpeace link inspiring and have made a mental note to someday, possibly, visit that link...if nothing else, just to see what a bunch of Zodiac owners are up to now.
Re:how is this different from the earlier story? (Score:5, Insightful)
The news that Dow is suing the Bopahl survivors to try to silence their protests over Dows failure to clean up is news to me.
The Union Carbide disaster at Bopahl was due to sheer negligence and greed. Dow still refuses to clean up the site of the disaster and has yet to pay compensation to most of the victims.
Perhaps if students stopped and considered the wisdom of joining a company that could kill 800 people with its negligence and not care a damn Dow might have a lot more difficulty recruiting on campus.
If you are choosing an employer in the chemical business their safety record should be your first concern. If you work for a company like Dow that is saying that they can kill 800 people, create pollution that will kill even more and they just don't care you are quite litteraly putting your own life on the line for their corporate profits.
The same goes for communities that have Dow installations near them, or planned to be built near them. Make sure that your representatives are aware that Dow cannoit be trusted.
Re:how is this different from the earlier story? (Score:2)
Two slashdot stories in 18 years on the deaths of 800 people caused by corporate negligence does not appear unreasonable to me.
Unfortunately Slashdot is still stuck in a very limited niche despite the clear poitential to do more. I doubt that the majority of slashdot readers have such narrow interests as the editors.
OK I can take the slashcode and put up my own slashdot to discuss political issues, but slashdot is not the code base it is the community.
A way to address the repeated stories problem and the focus problem would be to create a kind of hybrid of slashdot and google news. Instead of the idiosyncratic and duplicative story selection by the slashcrew the stories could be choosen automatically in the same way as the google news stories are.
This would also reduce the number of tedious 'Microsoft is ssooooooo evil' rants where a story that has nothing to do with Microsoft is posted but the editor feels obliged to tell us what he thinks Microsoft would do in that situation. This type of behavior was more acceptable when slashdot was independent rather than run by a Microsoft competitor.
Another scheme which might be interesting would be to throw the editor queue open for inspection (but not comment) and moderation. Perhaps readers at karma cap or close could get moderation points for this purpose.
Slashdot talks a great line about decentralization etc. but really when it comes down to it the whole thing is a corporate dictatorship, one with a friendly face but not something that meets the game they talk.
Re:They keep going on about (Score:2, Insightful)
Not According to G.W. Bush, he himself said "There ought to be limits to freedom" when he was talking about Parodies of his campaign website.
Re:USA - the world's biggest polluter. So what's n (Score:2, Interesting)
That sort of automatically follows from the fact that America has the highest GDP and GDP/capita, doesn't it?
Personally I agree with you that the US should be doing a lot more to control it's greenhouse gas emissions. But tirades that ignore the fact that there are other sources of pullution in this world, and in fact the US is not doing that badly in terms of pullution per GDP do little to address the overall problem.
If you look at statistics like pollution / GDP, which is a much more indicitive measure of how a society is handling pollution issues, America is not the highest in the world, and isn't even close. For example if you look at lb. of sulfur dioxide emissions per $1000 USD GDP we have the following as the top polluters.
Poland
Greece
Australia
Canada
Turkey
Czec
China
Russia
In fact the situation with pollution in China is so bad that 8 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world are in China.
China, with a GDP equal to about 10% of the US GDP releases 13% of the world's CO2 vs. the US's 23%. That is a factor of more than 5 per GDP dollar greater than the US. At this rate, and China's rate of economic growth it is estimated that China will be the #1 CO2 emitter by the end of the decade. By 2020 China is expected to be emitting more CO2 than the US, Japan and Canada combined.
Yes, the US is the largest consumer of economic resources, and the largest polluter in the world. Be even if the US were to freeze it's CO2 emissions at 1990 levels, it would little to impact world CO2 levels or growth of those levels. That growth is coming from places outside the US. And even worse is the efficiency of that growth in terms of pollution per GDP dollar.
Re:USA - the world's biggest polluter. So what's n (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the UN : China is doing all it can to reduce its emissions, the US is still increasing its pollution."
Like much of the world, China is doing something about C02, which is a good job, because the US's refusal to work with the Kyoto Protocol is embarrassing.
Source [solutions-site.org]
Corrections re Clinton (Score:2)
* Torpedoing any serious effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions in the 1997 Kyoto agreement (thanks, Bill Clinton).
Bush torpedoed Kyoto immediately after taking office.
* Failing to tackle arsenic pollution in its own drinking water (currently at levels way above those that would be illegal in Europe and elsewhere) until 2004 (thanks again, Bill).
* Attempting to reverse that legislation, only to have it blow up in his face (thanks again, Dubya).
President Bush deserves the blame for repudiating action on arsenic [go.com] permanently, Clinton for leaving it until the 11th hour. At least Clinton put it on the table -- Bush never will because of the mining interests.
* Reversing an age-old bi-partisan policy of demanding more fuel effieciency from car makers (Bill again).
Age-old? CAFE has been essentially frozen since President Reagan. Clinton might have failed to raise it, but in face of a very hostile Congress.
* Exempting SUVs from having to meet the same minimum mileage requirements of other cars (Bill again).
No. The "exemption" (lower standard actually) was practically why SUV's and minivans were invented in the eighties, not the other way around. Notice how station wagons, subject to car standards, disappeared long ago? The lax standard was intended to favor pickups in rural areas and the like, not a fleet of urban vehicles. Cheap fuel prices and style perferences have accelerated adoption of SUV's.
MOD PARENT DOWN -1 OFF-TOPIC (Score:2)