Why, because he’s noticed that no matter how strong an economy the US may have, it needs a life-sustaining planet on which to function?
Does a 1- to 3-percent reduction in CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions = a life-sustaining planet?
Should people lose their jobs, or the US put itself in a position of economic disadvantage, then, to achieve it?
Again, I expect my elected representatives to care more about it than matt_mcl, with all due respect.
Actually, I’m going to say that I think that the US refusal to sign the Kyoto Treaty is better for the world than any attempt to renegotiate, with a few reservations. By not signing, the US allows the rest of the world to adopt the treaty as it stands. The US does not seem to feel that the treaty is economically healthy for the country. Due to the incredible disparity between production of greenhouse gasses in the US and in the rest of the world, I think it’s perfectly rational to expect that the costs of compliance with one rule would be borne differently.
To achieve an acceptable balance between economic interests and environmental ones, I think it is best if the US developed its own plan of action. The Bush Administration is supposedly planning on coming up with a plan, which it should have done beforehand. Hopefully, the Democrats will flex some muscle to keep the pressure up on this front. And hopefully the US plan will have as its goal compliance with the same standards as the rest of the world. This will require the US to cut back on CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions faster than the rest of the world, but not as fast as implementing the Kyoto Treaty would require.
Of course, if you think that the planet will cease to be life-sustaining in the next ten years unless the US implements the Kyoto Treaty now, then obviously that’s what it should do, and damn the cost. However, I’d like to see a cite if you’re going to make that argument.
First of all, the treaty that was rejected by the Senate has been altered considerably, with almost all of the changes being favorable to the United States. CO2 sinks,such as our forests, for example, would be very helpful in terms of meeting our reduction goals.
More importantly, however, we need to tackle the issue of exactly how painful the Kyoto treaty would be for our economy. In several recent SDMB debates on environmental issues, it’s been shown that economic damage from environmental laws is often a great deal less than was predicted. The United States has reduced CFC production to combat ozone depletion and reduced sulfuric emissions to combat acid rain without causing the economic problems that many people predicted.
So what exactly will be so damaging about the Kyoto protocols? A great deal of progress towards meeting our goals could be achieved just by installing more modern equipment (much of which is made in the United States) into older facilities that produce more pollution. True, there would be some costs, but I haven’t seen any evidence which proves that they would be so extreme as to make many companies choose to move their production overseas.
It seems that today (?) the US are to refuse to sign the Geneva agreement on biological weapons inspection. Coming so soon after the refusal to sign the Kyoto agreement, the impression is very much of a country that doesn’t consider itself part of a wider world stage.
Any comments on this?
pan
I read somewhere that at least in part, the reasons for this were not that the US had any interest in producing illicit BW but that the terms of the multilateral inspection regimes could have lead to industrial espionage, based on the fact that other countries probably had more to learn from US facilities than vice versa. True? Don’t know. Possible? I’d guess so.
Still the fact remains that by staying outside the agreement, they legitimise other countries also staying outside - countries we really do have things to fear from.
The US (along with lots of other countries) has had chemical weapon inspections for years - they’ve managed to avaoid industrial sepionage on that. Why not this?
I can’t help feeling that the refusal speaks of a wider willingness to view the rest of the world as being, well, irrelevent.
pan
Kabbes -
I was just going to comment that the US looks like it will refuse to sign up to the germ warfare convention. Taken in conjunction with Bush’s determination to proceed with son-of-star-wars whatever the 1972 ABM treaty and its successors say, and Rumsfeld’s frankly provocative comments about China, this is starting to look like a rogue administration.
I’d say it looks more like the administration choosing a course of isolationism.
Couldn’t let that wonderful description of our current administration’s modus operandi get lost in the volume of posts.
Thanks for bringing a smile to my face first thing in the morning!
Speaking to the non-Americans: No, it is not true that the actions of the Bush Administration represent the thinking of most Americans. Mr Bush, you will recall, was not elected by a majority vote but by a quirk in the system.
I think the categorization as “rogue” (or rouge) nation is not un-apt. We saw the same atittude ("Damn the world, protect the interests of the U.S. military-industrial complex) when the Republican-controlled Congress rejectedg nuclear treaties.
I think the rest of the world should boycott imports from the U.S. Take a stand! Don’t just name-call and point fingers! There is only one answer to the (stupid, IMHO) arguments about economic disadvantages in complying with world standards – namely, to demonstrate, forcibly, that there is far greater economic disadvantage to **non-**compliance.
If governments would ban U.S. manufactured goods, and if non-U.S. consumers would join such a boycott in significant numbers, you’ll be amazed at how fast even the Bush Administration would change its position.
At the moment, however, they are playing king-of-the-mountain, and damn the world as long as their own pockets (and the pockets of their cronies at the heads of most major U.S. corporations) are lined. Feh.
Mr. Haven - Concern over losing jobs and redistributing wealth and trade influence from the USA to other countries in the guise of environmentalism is “stupid?” So’s your assertion that Bush won the presidential election on a “quirk,” but anyway.
I do agree with this -
I thought you would then present logical arguments for why this agreement would not harm American economic interests, or why failing to ratify will. And all you give me is a proposed boycott of American goods.
Still waiting to learn what a 1- to 3-percent reduction of CO[sub]2[/sub] does to save the world. Or a 10- or 20-percent reduction, for that matter.
The world needs to be weaned from fossil fuel use. That’s a given. It’s also, currently, an impossibility.
More emphasis needs to be placed on incentives to industries worldwide to research and implement cleaner technologies and alternatives, with an extremely long-term view.
It’s not something governments are likely to do for industry. It’s something they are going to have to do for themselves. With worldwide competition being as fierce as it is, they must be given incentives to make this happen.
“Do this or you will be punished” isn’t the best way to approach the problem.
If there even is one.
But that would play entirely into the hands of those who wish America to pursue an isolationist policy by reinforcing their “Them & Us” imagery. It would also be a useful piece of propoganda for those who say the cold war against Russia has now been replaced with an economic war against the world.
Milo - sometimes sanctions are entirely an appropriate way to persuade another country to fall into line. You create consequences for going a different way so that the “rogue nation” must take those consequences into account when evaluating its decision.
After all, the US clearly feels that it is advantageous to not be committed to the treaty. Given that others are committing to it, this gives the US (by its own admission) an advantage. As such, it is not unreasonable to level the playing field by creating economic consequences for non-compliance.
And sometimes sanctions aren’t appropriate. And like Gary, I wonder whether if on this occasion they would play right into the isolationist’s hands.
FWIW I feel that countries will need to employ ever bigger sticks and carrots to persuade industry over the next 50 years to wean itself from oil entirely. We need to make a start on that process. Why not this, and why not now?
pan
So, just to confirm, spending many billions of dollars on an ABM defence system is sound financial planning. But spending even a fraction of that on clean energy systems is a waste because it’s an impossible problem.
Sorry, but I’m confused again.
Well, I dashing in and out (here) but I’m half-way through a response to Milo and his cost-benefits (joy!). Just wanted to thank CK for stealing my thunder and causing a re-write and also to briefly comment on the boycotting issue: I agree with CK. I believe, this is the inevitable way forward, led by the more radicalised Germans and perhaps French but with other Euro’s not far behind. However, I see this aspect – these will also be others - as consumer led rather than political.
Unlike kabbes and Gary, I don’t see this as playing into the hands of this US Administration at all given its non-political (read; Corporate led) agenda – if those most influencing Bush’s Environment non-‘policy’ suffer as a result (because their companies and products are being boycotted), the policy will change.
Exxon / Esso are first in line, IMHO. And they ain’t getting my business…which I’m now off to do…“Sorry, I’m late…”
It wasn’t a quirk, it was out-and-out thievery. Vincent Bugliosi has an excellent post-crime analysis in The Betrayal of America : How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President.
More than a zero percent reduction will do. Even a five-year-old can see that.
No disagreement from me here, but every little bit helps, even if it includes governments making threats to industry to get them in line.
Even though Kyoto doesn’t go as far as many environmentalists wish it did, it’s still better than nothing – which is what the present administration prefers.
Yeah, global warming’s just unproven cockamamie wacko science … unlike missile defense systems, which are proven to work so long as the tests are stacked heavily in the interceptor’s favor. :rolleyes:
No this is sleight of hand. If you wish to reject Kyoto on these grounds, then you (and Bush) whould first have to demonstrate that it would have that effect. Otherwise
it’s just a dishonest scare tactic.
No doubt a 1 to 3% reduction from 1990 levels (not current levels) will not be enough. But since doing nothing will result in continued increases, which almost certainly WILL harm the world, even stopping increases at this point is a worthwhile first step.
Or is you argument that since we’re screwed anyway, we might as well play while it’s still nice outside?
Nonsense, Weaning is a process, and it has to start sometime. Just because don’t know how long it will take to fully kick the fossile fuel habbit is no reason not to begin.
Precisely, and one really good incentive is that if they DON’t they will be in violation of the law.
Of course not, but it’s much better than doing nothing Which is what Bush is actually doing. Surely you’re not naive enough to to think that his ‘we need more studies’ tactic is more than just an ploy to avoid acting?
You continue to mantain, without evidence, that Kyoto would harm the US economy. I think that our past experience with mandating cleaner technologies has shown that the economy as a whole benefits from these sorts of rules.
However, it’s seems likely that however much the economy will benefit, the fossil fuel companies will NOT benefit.
And since, in the end, that is who pulls Bush’s strings it really isn’t surprising that he’s stonewalling any attempt to address global warming.
What’s surprising is seeing you defend him as he works to harm you along with the rest of us.
tj
Since we seem once again to be drifting into a “Bush and the U.S. versus the World” scenario, let us remember the following:
Number of nations that have ratified the new anti-global warming accord: zero.
Number of nations that ratified the original Kyoto agreement: one.
Number of EU nations that ratified Kyoto I: zero.
Number of Democrats that voted to ratify Kyoto I: zero.
Extent to which “developing” nations like China and India will have mandated reductions in CO2 emissions under the pending accord: zero.
Extent to which the pending accord addresses the real engine driving world environmental degradation (population growth): zero.
Joy gained in Bush and America-bashing: Immense.
Another point worth making is that, if the US is the only country which fails to sign up to the treaty, its goods will be produced under circumstances of unfair economic advantage – free-riding on the rest of the world’s environmental protection measures – and so an economic boycott is a particularly appropriate response.
I don’t know why you say “drifting”, since it seems to be implicit in the thread title.
This argument has had an outing in every one of the recent threads about the USA’s failure to live up to its international committments on the environment, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, small-arms proliferation and so on.
The arrangments for treaty-making vary considerably from country to country. A number of the signatories to these treaties do not need to ratify them since treaty-making is a power of the executive.