> How can an administration that justifies nuclear weapons testing be taken seriously in its initiatives to lower emissions?

Huh? I fail to see how it relates. Nuclear weapons testing and industrial pollution are two entirely seperate questions. The first is based on the fact that nuclear weapons technology is important - whether any particular person likes it or not, it's important. If there *is* a major war, one thing you cannot afford is for the other country to have a technological advantage. If, for example, we went to war with China (totally random example, no picking on the statistical likelihood), and only the Chinese side had nuclear weapons, we would be totally at their mercy. They could end the war pretty much as they pleased with strategic nuclear strikes, and we would not have that capability. Like it or not, that's not a risk that can afford to be run, even if the alternative (arms race and nuclear standoff, much like the cold war) is not pretty. And if you can come up with a low-pollution method of testing nuclear weapons (in case that's where your argument is coming from), I'm sure there's someone who'd be glad to listen. Right now, though, they just try to put the pollution in the least harmful place.

That, really, is what the industrial pollution issue is about - doing the same thing that's already being done in a less environmentally damaging fashion. That I can support (reservedly) - I think, if there is a reasonable alternative that produces less pollution, it should at the very least be explored. If it turns up not to be *drastically* less efficient, it should be implemented. Similarly, I think that if nuclear weapons tests can be performed with less environmental impact, go for it. But I really don't see how.

> My question is this: is endeavour towards a cleaner environment significantly hindered by the fact that the administrations which can effect the necessary changes are answerable to creditors and not to their conscience?

Depends on what you mean by "not being answerable to their conscience[s]." I think that it's goofy to assume that all that it is "conscientious" for a government to do is think about the environment. A government has a responsibility to the people it serves - a responsibility (according to current governmental theory, anyhow) to ensure at the very least the survival of its people, and, in this age of world economics to "position the country strategically" (hate to use business buzzwords, but there you go) economically, and make sure it is successful and productive. In a time of economic recession, the government cannot - should not - recklessly endager the economy further. Moderate-to-large economic losses in a time of prosperity are acceptable for a relatively small environmental benefit. In a time of recession, there is not that much economic leverage.

If you're implying that a government's primary responsibility is to care for the environment, I'd say you're way off base. As modern governments operate, their primary goal is to ensure survival and prosperity of their people. Anything else - environmental concerns, space exploration, overseas aid, whatever - must be secondary to that. And as governments right now (at least here in the United States, anyhow) are currently attempting to address a declining economy, now is not the right time to be hoping for major environmentalist legislation.

> Also, would things be different is legislation was based upon public opinion?

Yes. Nothing would ever get done. No public opinion poll ever - *ever* - polls 100% of the population, and, as such, different polls taken by different organizations would frequently report different results. It would be simple enough for said organizations to tailor them to do so. Then there would be much fighting about which poll is accurate, and nothing, as I said, would ever get done.

Alternatively, there could be one federally-appointed polling body that was in charge of everything, in which case it would have basically free license to become corrupt and tyrannical. Poll results, as I said before, are simple enough to doctor. And, besides, unless absolutely everyone was consulted, people would feel that they were left out of the decision. This would lead to discontent. And if every single person *were* to be polled on every single issue, no one would have any time to do anything else. That is why, in a republic such as the United States, we vote *one time* a year and elect people who sit around and vote on all these little minor issues in our place. And even *that* small amount of public-opinion-based voting caused huge uproars about dishonesty and corruption not two years ago yet, if you'll recall.