"What about the US?"

Mouawad poses that question near the end of the article, and answers it himself:

"The country has shown little willingness to tackle its energy needs in a rational way."

Low energy taxes, inefficient cars and trucks, an inefficient transportation sector in general, the world's longest commutes, and that complete unwillingness to use reason when confronted with the reality of our huge waste of resources.

Our lifestyle is our entitlement, non-negotiable, etc, etc.

Meanwhile of course "everyone else" wants to live just like we have been .... ?

So whose turn is it?

The USA must address this issue of environmental irresponsibility in a very big way.

150 years ago, American folks could maybe be excused for believing that we would not deplete resources and alter our environment in radical and negative ways. These folks were of course plundering the continent from the folks who had been here before, but could not imagine using too much water, wood, soil, and so forth. People just kept moving the frontier until they got to the other coast.

But now it is clear that our species has run out of frontiers -- globally. So do we fight over what is left, or do we make careful and reasoned choices about moderating consumption and peacefully trying to address the issues of overpopulation, overconsumption, and environmental injustice?

I note the tone of the campaign for POTUS and weep. H. Clinton says we would "obliterate Iran" if they attacked Israel. A fine lot of good that would do. What then? Of course no one in US politics or media bothers to note that Iran has not attacked other countries yet, and that the USa has done some very extreme meddling in the internal politics of Iran for decades.

So what direction will we choose? War or Peace?

And how does the world see the USA in regards to energy use and use of force around the world?

How do most folks in Australia or New Zealand see the USA?