Within the strict requirements of Scientific method, climate change is still a theory. As is Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Yet this morning, 178 countries agreed to act on the ‘theory’. The US is the only country of any import not part of the compromise deal (whether the political compromise compromises Kyoto itself will remain unclear for some time but at least the all important framework remains in place. As do the contributions of most leading countries)
US observers to the Conference were booed by the representatives of other nations as its representative restated the Administrations position towards the end of the meeting. This is unusual and also further evidence of the growing belief of many that, given the potential consequences of inaction, the US is the ‘Rouge Nation’ of the 21st century – ironic given that the term was invented by the US State Department to identify countries acting outside the realm of acceptable behaviour.
Is the position adopted by the current Administration (that Kyoto is “fatally flawed”) still indicative of the majority view within the US and, given the ‘theoretical’ seriousness of the consequences of inaction, is it unreasonable to characterise the US as a ‘Rouge Nation’ ?
Until it gets ratified, I wouldn’t go around screaming about how high and mighty any particular country is.
Even if they do ratify and implement the Kyoto treaty, then good for them. Let them lead by example and show that it can be done without destroying their economies. It’s nice to see the rest of the world taking care of themselves.
If it works and makes sense, then I am sure we follow right along. If it fails miserably and screws up their economies, I’m sure we’ll be there to bail out the entire world yet again.
As for “rogue nations”, I think that’s a little harsh on the US’ part as it implies a devil-may-care irrationality that I don’t see.
My take on this is that the US is in an unrivalled position of strength at the moment. That’s not to say the US is unchallengeable or unsinkable, but just that economically, culturally and militarily the US is head and shoulders above other states at this time. As a result, there seems to be a feeling within certain elements of the US leadership that the US can do as it damn well pleases – not heedlessly, but given its current position diplomatic niceties are less of a requirement.
I hope this doesn’t sound like US-bashing. It’s not intended as such. The current leadership in the US is understandably exploiting its strength to act in US interests. Who wouldn’t, in the same position?
The concern is that this is not a sustainable philosophy, ecoologically or diplomatically.
Well, here’s one US citizen’s not-too-well-informed opinion :
There may have been valid criticisms of Kyoto (as it was before) from something of an environmental standpoint. Carbon sinks was one big one, and there was potential for debate about using 1990 standards for the percentage reduction (which favors Germany and possibly the UK who had further to go at that time). Although that ought to have been worked out back in 1997, and I would be willing to support the compromise, possibly even the original protocol as it shows a commitment to doing something about the problem.
However, the Bush administration’s (and therefore the United States’s) opposition has failed in two major ways as I see it :
1- Rejecting the protocol outright, rather than requesting a renegotiation. I doubt this would have been politically workable, although we’ve seen that a compromise was made to preserve something of the treaty.
2- Apparently rejecting it for economic reasons. I’m sorry, President Bush, but that was the point. It’s an environmental treaty, designed to force countries to either improve their technology or reduce their consumption of resources that might have ill environmental effects.
The worrisome thing is that Bush is not willing to make any sort of concessions solely for the sake of the environment, and even green accounting may be a hard sell for him. So the US rejection of Kyoto looms as a larger political statement which might indicate that we don’t want to care what the rest of the world thinks about the environment. Maybe even on other issues, we’ll see. I hope that Bush will try to make an effort to redeem this reputation, but you might just have to wait a few more years.
side note/hijack : While in technical terms climate change is empirically evident and not ‘a theory’, the implied theory is that humans, especially by releasing more carbon dioxide, are responsible for this climate change. And while the link seems to be apparent, the science is definitely not as strong as this theory can’t be tested (unlike relativity) and there’s not a lot of evidence (unlike evolution). But at any rate it is obviously a bad idea to release so much of this gas into the atmosphere, and it doesn’t seem to be argued openly that there is no cause for concern.
Except that it will be very difficult for the rest of the world to make progress as long as one of the world’s biggest polluters refuses to co-operate. The rest of the world put together produces only about three times the amount of greenhouse gases as the USA. The is means that the pro rata reduction in emissions required to produce a significant environmental impact will be proportionately much greater for everybody else.
Put another way: the citizens of participating countries – who are, on average, poorer than the average US citizen – will be subsidising Americans’ energy profligacy while the US will enjoy any global environmental benefits as a free rider.
I think not, the environment still ranks high as a concern in opinion polls. But this is largely irrelevant. Opinion polls also showed a significant majority of the population opposed Bush’s tax cuts, especially when compared with spending priorities such as Social Security and Medicare. Yet Bush was able to easily pass his tax cut “for the people” with only token resistance from Democrats. As usual, what matters is the beliefs of certain economic elites, in the case of global warming a fairly small group of them.
But there is also a lot of uninformed nonsense on the talk radio stations and even the mainstream press, so many Americans are confused about this issue.
On this issue, sadly, I’d have to say “yes,” though I’d prefer “rogue administration.” Although in fairness Clinton didn’t do much on the issue himself, and used the Republican congress as an excuse to avoid pressing the issue. As a Republican, Bush actually has a better opportunity to make progress on this issue than Clinton, if he were so inclined. But of course that ain’t gonna happen, especially in an administration featuring a virtual who’s who in the oil industry.
Most folk don’t think the issue allows for an ‘us and them’ solution - it’s a kinda one-world thang… Also, you’re going to have to explain that “destroying economies” idea a little further (well, I wish someone would) because no one quite understands where the President is coming from on that.
If anyone else is of the same mind as Freedom (who seems to take it as a personal criticism of the American people), let me restate the Presidents pre-election pledge to the American people:
“Governor Bush is committed to a new era of environmental protection. The 30-year-old federal model of “mandate, regulate and litigate” needs to be modernized: it has yielded benefits in the past, but it encourages Americans to do the bare minimum to protect the environment and fails to reward innovation or results.”
Yep matt , I agree China continues to have an outrageous record on Human Rights and is, quite rightly, considered outside the fold. But, on the Environment that seems not to be the case. President Bush, it might be argued, has been a little economical with the truth in relation to the great demon China:
" Despite White House claims that China will soon become the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, a new report has found that China reduced its carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent since 1997 while its economy grew 36 percent. By comparison, carbon dioxide emissions in the United States have jumped 14 percent since 1997.
The report released by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) contradicts President George W. Bush’s assertion that China is not addressing global warming."
“…while it’s economy grew by 36%.” I’m positively shocked - how can that be if President Bush says the US can’t afford compliance because his main priority is American jobs…??
matt, if you don’t see the President’s position as irrational, ok. Personally, I have a problem with his logic:
His argument seems to be:
“American jobs must come first” – what’s that got to do with anything (see, as just one example, China’s economic growth, above) ? > We’re not going to do anything > We’ll ignore it > (presumably) It’ll go away. That, to my mind, is not rational.
Thanks for making those points. I guess information is still the key - and how it’s presented. I also take your point on “Administration”.
Freedom, words fail me. You divide a global issue into a “them and us” situation, talking about “the rest of the world taking care of themselves” and “we’ll be there to bail out the entire world yet again.”
It’s that sort of parochial, blinkered viewpoint that produces the situation we’ve now reached where every industrialised nation with the exception of the US is at least trying to address environmental concerns. Absolute shortsighted foolishness.
As for the rationality of Bush’s policy, I still think ‘rogue nation’ is a bit harsh. I don’t think it’s a good policy, certainly, but irrationality would indicate to me that Bush hasn’t thought it through at all. I think he has, and has made a myopic decision that may benefit his popularity in the short term (if it does bring economic benefits to the US) but will alienate allies in the long term.
Yep, it’s the damn dyslexia. I try to take the time to write (reasonably) comprehensibly but the reading sometimes lets me down.
Maybe I’m missing your point, matt. Just seems to me that ignoring the inevitable consequences of your actions is irrational (If I jump out this window, drive into this wall, take 50 E’s in a weekend and drink a bottle of Vodka…). Even putting the vital Kyoto framework to one side, he has no other proposals.
His position (ignoring the Corporate backers agenda) reminds me of King Canute on the seashore, except this time it’s the level not the tide.
Surely short-termism isn’t an unusual position in politics? Again, I know and you know that this policy may hurt the US (and the world) in the long-term, but Bush is probably thinking in five-year stretches. It’s irrational in the long term, but maybe not (to his point of view) in the short term.
To extend your analogy, it’s like someone who gets tanked up, smokes like a chimney and pops a few pills every weekend – in the short term it’s fun, in the long term there could be some nasty consequences.
Leveling off and realistically reducing CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions is a worthwhile effort, if balanced with a lot of other considerations.
Can someone explain to me how Kyoto is of any appreciable environmental benefit when it allows “developing nations” to catch up to our level of CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions?
Why is this allowed? Quite simply, for economic reasons. So let’s not tsk-tsk America too strenuously for weighing similar considerations.
P.S. Any among you who want to paint this as “Bush/the Republicans” is off-base. The U.S. Senate rejected Kyoto 96-0. I think there might have been a bipartisan message sent there, but that’s just me.
Now, quite simply it’s allowed for reasons of practicality.
The main impetus for reducing CO2 emissions has to come from those countries who have been, to date, most responsible for pollution. If the main industrial nations can develop technologies that achieve this, these can then be made to developing nations, allowing them to develop with producing greater environmental costs. Developing nations do not have the technological or production base for this sort of project.
There’s also the fact that it would hypocrisy to turn to developing nations and tell them that they had to create less pollution than we do. Surely one rule should be applied to all.
As someone who partied for a while, matt, I can say with some authority the day comes when sort-termism is no longer healthy. That day has come. Kyoto isn’t political short-termism (any more than is NATO, the UN, the WTO, etc), why should Bush be excused ?
Kyoto is about a lot more than immediate reductions in emissions. Most importantly, it is an internationally agreed framework for action – not something the world manages to do very often. As such it is precious in itself (Rio was now 10 years ago). But it also means there is an established forum / mechanism for addressing the issue and continuing to address it – we haven’t even reached the end of the beginning yet.
In addition (including a potted account of a likely scenario);
The division between rich and poor countries is growing ever wider. It is not reasonable to (yet) ask developing countries to cut back on their industrialisation programmes when so many are having problems with (for example) their debt obligations, fundamental health care, education etc – the issue for them, unlike us, is not having fully developed economies that need to be cleaned.
The West will, in time, use it’s economic leverage (WTO, World Bank, commercial loan restrictions, etc) to affect change in the developing world but we need to demonstrate our willingness to do that ourselves (to carry the moral argument), to prove fully the economic modelling and develop technologies that will particularly help those countries. Also, creating more balanced approaches to economic, social, medicinal and aid issues apropos the developing world will encourage change.
If that doesn’t work, we then get heavy and use the major lever of restricting trade on the basis of their non-compliance (at this early stage some tariffs are already built into Kyoto so the principle already exists). It will, therefore, be in their interests to comply. All of this is someway down the road and therefore part of the ongoing process that Kyoto has begun. Kyoto is not the solution, it initiates a 20 / 30 / 50 year process.
On your Bush / Republican point, how would you view thses responses in the changing (political – ho ho) climate ?
One – the Senate vote was at a point when Kyoto was popularly characterised within the US as “unworkable” – not a lot of incentive to put your head on the block, especially as it was also characterised as costly in terms of jobs and money (at the beginning of an election cycle). There is also now, with a Republican White House and Democrat Senate, far greater scope for party political point scoring. The Demo’s almost have to try to make this an issue, IMHO.
Two – The Bush thing is not just about a refusal to accept Kyoto it’s about a point blank refusal to in any way negotiateand to not propose anything at all as an alternative. There is zero dialogue. Now, another President might have also adopt that position but we haven’t seen isolationism like this for 70 years. There is no modern-day precedent.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by London_Calling *
… matt, if you don’t see the President’s position as irrational, ok. Personally, I have a problem with his logic:
His argument seems to be:
“American jobs must come first” – what’s that got to do with anything (see, as just one example, China’s economic growth, above) ?
…
As an initial point, isn’t it possible that China could make such economic growth while reducing emissions reflects the drastically different state of their economy during the same period? Does not necessarily follow that our more advanced industry could make similar gains.
However, I really want to focus on what you suggest at the underpinning thought of “American jobs must come first.” I think this type of attitude pervades much of U.S. foreign policy, as well as a great deal of conservative internal policy. Essentially saying, I’m all for fairness, as long as I maintain my advantage.
On an international basis, look no further than the Law of the Seas treaty, or our execrable record concerning UN dues. Domestically, how bout eliminating the inheritance tax? I’m reminded of Zero Mostel leaning out the window shouting, If you’ve got it, flaunt it!"
I’m not entirely sure that it is “a good thing”, let alone a necessary and indisputable thing, that US citizens should be able to maintain or improve their current standard of living. This is not a matter of national defense. It is a matter of whether or not I should have cheap gas for my 2 gas guzzling SUV’s in my suburban garage.
How much “richer” than other countries do we need to be?
Dinsdale - I think you also have to question the logic of “American jobs”. Like Europe, the US is fast approaching a post-industrialisation phase in which the service economy grows (for example, IT) while traditional industrialisation (at best) stagnates, or is transferred out to developing countries. Additional industrial energy use is comparatively minimal.
On the question of consumption – and perhaps Americans can help me on this – there has traditionally been little incentive or encouragement with regards to efficiency. I recall being in California and looking at comsumable white products and not seeing any products with ‘energy efficient’ labels. It is, by contrast, quite difficult to find anything not labelled ‘energy efficient’ in Europe – maybe things have changed out there since the electricity crisis ?
So, Dinsdale, it need not be about pure consumption but rather better consumption – Europe is no poorer than the US and, I don’t believe, has incurred any loss in living standards whatsoever as a result of greater efficiency.
Alternatively, if people do want to drive SUV’s so be it. But why not make them incur the real cost of their consumption, the environmental cost, via the tax system ? It’s not about restricting choice, per see. It’s about apportioning responsibilty, also.
Of course, greater consumption does tend to generate greater profits…
**
I agree.
I don’t agree, however, that that means the U.S. should not carefully consider the cost-benefit factors of any attempt at reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
“You’ve got to lead in this area, so just sign here.” Uh-uh. Does the agreement accomplish what it sets out to accomplish? Does it harm U.S. economic interests? Does it give unfair advantage to other nations? These are all factors that must be weighed.
I don’t expect the rest of the world to look out for the prosperity of the USA and its citizens. I expect my elected politicians and their staff members to do that.
**
I think you are being a bit naive here, Gary. Unless the accord mandates that developing nations must implement CO[sub]2[/sub]-reducing industrial advancements as they become available. Which it does not.
“Mr. Argentine Factory Owner, if you install this device we’ve developed for a mere $10 million U.S., you will greatly reduce the amount of carbon dioxide you release.”
What’s Mr. Argentine Factory Owner’s response? What’s his incentive to do this? Even if you want to play Pollyanna and believe he will do it to do his small part to save Mother Earth, the undeniable incentive isn’t even there for that.
He’s going to check to see what he has to do, and if he doesn’t have to implement it, he won’t.
**
I guess it depends upon how you look at “one rule applying to all.” Is the idea that we need to reduce global warming-contributing gas emissions NOW, across the board, or isn’t it? The provisions for developing nations tends to indicate it is something other than that.
The Clash’s Best Album:
**
Don’t worry about your concerns over this accord’s impact on your already precarious American economy - especially on the particularly precarious industrial sector.
Don’t worry about whether it provides unfair economic advantage to other nations, or that this accord could diminish your competitiveness overseas.
And don’t worry that, in addition to doing all of the above, greenhouse gases will still be a problem not even close to going away.
Don’t worry about all that, because this is an internationally agreed framework for action.
I don’t mean to be overly sarcastic, L_C. My point is, the USA should rightly ask “Where’s the beef?” and “Will this hurt us?,” not just be browbeaten into doing it because everybody else wants to.
**
The USA wants other economies in the world to develop, because it increases our potential markets (absent those pesky, silly trade limitations and overdone tariffs).
But this development is intolerable at the expense of US jobs and economic well-being. A very realistic scenario when some countries’ industries don’t have to play by the same rules. (And do you need evidence that American industries will relocate to where they can produce their widgets cheaper?)
**
I respectfully disagree, that what we might be able to do to effect change in developing nations in the future should give us the necessary comfort level to sign onto a treaty that hurts our nation’s economic well-being more than any other’s.
Getting down to 1990 emission levels would hurt. It isn’t just those demonized CEOs saying that.
**
I agree that looking that far ahead is a wise approach. But why not make this a little less economically painful, then? Emphasize providing carrots in the form of tax breaks and lifting of trade restrictions for industries that implement CO[sub]2[/sub]-reducing technologies. I mean, make it the centerpiece of the whole thing. Not some unrealistic target emission level in an unrealistic timeframe.
**
What’s changed? How are the “costing jobs and money” concerns a mischaracterization?
While the temptation to jump on the other side of any issue from President Bush must be tempting for Democrats, they are still US politicians, whose primary focus must be the best interests of the USA and its citizens.
Granting the evidence of global warming, and acknowledging that it is a potentially bad thing, little evidence has been provided about how this would be a good thing for the US, and political realities are what they are.
**
When did isolationist come to equal “someone who disagrees with someone else in another country?”
Here it says a somewhat watered-down agreement has been reached (it seems the US isn’t the only country with concerns about economic impact).
I would suspect that pressure will mount on the US to come up with its own independent CO[sub]2[/sub] policy that at least in many ways follows the international one. Nothing wrong with that, IMO.
**
And this, in a nutshell, sums up the trepidation about Kyoto on the part of Bush and Congress.
I don’t want anyone who thinks like Dinsdale making decisions that affect my country’s economic future.
