Mr. President, why?

For a few years I have craved -and dreaded - the answer to the question of, WHY if the technology to reduce poverty is there, is cheap, is practical, is SIMPLE, is able to bolster the GLOBAL economy, W-H-Y do we not use it? Why, instead, do we follow and advocate subsidies (even if they are "well-intentioned" by some standards) that

1. devastate the global economy in the long-term (although admittedly in the short-term they can seem attractive)
and 2. DEVASTATE those fellow human beings, who the same "Christians" - making all these big policies (yes, face it, America runs the world, especially apparent from outside her glowing walls) claim to advocate.

For example, we have the technology that will allow us to alleviate technology and infrastructure that require the burning of fossil fuels ("UUggghh," I know you groan, but keep going, it gets better). I KNOW we have it, I mean if we had the nuclear bomb 60 years ago, are you kidding? So, the next question is, what is the nature of these technologies.. well think of the most cheap and available resources, obviously those that are readily renewable, free, and easily accessible. Obviously, sunlight, water, etc etc. I am not going to bore you with the details of renewable energy that you probably already know. But my point is, they are cheap and readily available to the lowest bidder, right? (I mean sunlight is not exactly taxable or anything) Next question, what is wrong with them? (this is besides the assertion that the "technology is not there," we already solved that one) Well, they produce no pollution.... oh, I remembered they require capital to build.

So, now explain why EVERY house in Kathmandu (country of annual GDP being about 200 USD) has a solar water heater on the roof. Certainly this cannot be explained by their high development status in the world market, the posh way of life, or the generosity of their monarchy government turned Maoist communist. So, why?

Maybe the Nepali likes the way they look, or maybe it is cheap, accessible, self-renewing, and causes no negative externalities (such as carbon emissions).

Soo... (getting warmer) WHY is this not used, advocated, or CHAMPIONED by the same world power who is considered the most progressive, developed, democratic, and human-rights (war on iraq ding ding ding) nation in the world? Why?

We now know it is not the expense, nor is it the technology, or availability, or the negative externalities, so why? Lobbying? Exxon Mobile? Perhaps. But it seems the American People, "with liberty and justice for all" and all the power and money in the world could overWHELM the wealthy executives at Exxon Mobile.


Almost every semi-educated person here has pointed out to me, "You know America is only 5 % of the world's population, but emits 20% of the world's carbon emissions? And nepal emits less than 1%, but takes the full brunt of it."

If we were not able to export our emissions overseas to these poor countries, they would be thriving - I know you could also argue that they would not have our positive benefits like medicines and blue-jeans - but, at least not suffering from sky-rocketing deaths from famine and diahhreal diseases caused by climate change.

What would happen if (and when, actually) we are forced to take a dose of our own medicine and digest our negative externalities? If all the pollution we produced was not able to leave the nation's borders? (which are super-strong now, thank you Georgy B.) Would we then allow and champion these sustainable technological advancements? If WE AMERICANS were faced with the environmental problems we export overseas, would we change (obviously so)? Or would we let our own people suffer? (obviously not)

So, in the name of the Lord our God who protects Mr. President so well, why are we letting our fellow lambs suffer overseas for no reason other than, "we like our big AC units and don't want no big solar thing or 'nother on top of the new ruuf?"