So now other countries are saying that the US is selfish for not signing the Kyoto agreement. Never mind that a smidgin of political sense would reveal that it’s rather likely that they have no intent of actually carrying it out, and are only expressing support because they know that the US will reject it, and they therefore won’t have to back up their words with actions.
But that’s not what this thread is about. No, this thread is about a chain of reasoning that occurred to me while reading the other Kyoto thread. The claim is that the US produces too much CO2, right? And why do we produce CO2? Because we have an advanced industrial economy that produces CO2 along with very useful goods. And what happens to these wonderful goods? Do we keep them all to ourselves? No, I don’t believe we do. I believe that the very same countries that are whining about Kyoto have very substantial trade with the US.
So here’s my suggestion for those other countries. If you think Kyoto is so great, then sign it. Until you do, you’re a bunch of hypocrites. “But wait!” you screech. “If we sign it now, without assurance that the US will sign it, we’ll be left reducing CO2 by ourselves, while the US goes on its merry way”. So tell you what: how about you tell Bush that if he doesn’t sign the treaty, all trade with the US gets cut off. You really think the US would stand for having its trade cut off? But of course, you’re not willing to do that are you? Because trade with the US is too important to you. That is, getting your hands on all those nice goods that caused the CO2 is more important to you than getting rid of the CO2. In case I haven’t made this clear enough: by buying US goods, you are paying the US to produce CO2. Telling the US it shouldn’t produce so much CO2 while paying them to do so is like buying elephant tusks from Africa while decrying Africans’ lack of conservation efforts.
That op makes too much sense.
You are obviously off-base and know nothing of this topic.
Let me help you.
**
Duhbya is evil.
Duhbya is stupid.
Duhbya cares nothing for the environment.
This is all Duhbya’s fault.
Clinton would have signed it.
Duhbya stole the election.
**
You may now continue with your regularly politically correct SD thread on Kyoto.
But also – crucially – because emissions of greenhouse gases have costs which are not felt by producers or by direct consumers. Certain inputs into the production process are under- (or un-) priced.
As for imposing trade restrictions on the US, it is my recollection that discrimination on the basis of production method was illegal under the GATT and is still so under the WTO.
IMO, the Kyoto protocol is about establishing a framework for contributing to the costs of environmental protection. Whilst – to put it mildly – it has problems, it remains disturbing that the US does not seem to recognise that it must contribute something to the costs of any solution. If the US had had an alternative proposal on the table over the past five years which specified a mechanism for addressing the problem then it would be harder to characterise their position as free-riding underpinned by the protection of industrial and resource-owning vested interests.
To say that measures to reduce greenhouse emissions would “hurt the economy” is so obviously a cop-out (the environment is part of the economy) that in the absence of a serious, detailed and diplomatically credible alternative, the US position looks short-sighted, disengaged, parasitic and – frankly – bought.
And U.S. residents should only purchase products imported from nations that implement Kyoto.
Sua
This cannot be the whole answer, since the US produces so much more CO2 per capita than other countries with advanced industrial economies which produce useful goods.
And the question of a boycott on US goods was raised by C K Dexter Haven three days ago here. Personally, I think it’s a very good suggestion.
You seem to be assuming that these goods (whatever they are) are only available from the USA and that it would be some kind of hardship for the rest of the world to go without them.
I cannot think of anything offhand which we in Europe import from the US which we could not do without very easily or find a close non-US substitute for. Even the US-brand goods such as Coca-Cola, Chicken McNuggets and Britney Spears CDs (and how on earth would we manage without those?) are usually produced locally by processes which comply with local environmental protection emasures. In fact, come to think of it, I can’t remember the last time I bought anything that was manufactured in the US.
Perhaps you could list some of the things which the rest of the world can get only by importing them from the USA?
What they aren’t telling you is well, telling.
We make up something like 6 per cent of the worlds population, but around 25 per cent of the worlds GDP/Industrial production. We may be the worlds largest “polluter” of C02, then, but we’re also producing most of the stuff very cleanly relative to the rest of the world.
Kyoto is merely about global redistribution of wealth, which is why the Senate would never ratify it, the president won’t sign off on it, etc etc.
You can argue it would be better to shift polluting technologies to the third world while the first world lives in idyllic, pollution-free nirvana, but how about letting the US decide what’s best for the US, thank you.
I believe that in the other thread, someone mentioned that the US produces 25% of the world’s industrial output. Measuring CO[sub]2[/sub] output per capita ignores the matter of importation and exportation. Since a large portion of the US’s economy is built on manufacturing goods for other countries, why should that count against those that live here.
Not that the US is in the clear, but it’s like that anti-Bush email that mentioned that Texas was the most polluted state. Sure it is, but that’s because it produces a disproportionately large share of the country’s supply of oil. You can’t put all the factories in one area and complain that the people in charge are incompetent because it is more polluted than areas without factories.
Of course, Japan probably has at least as much heavy industrial production per capita, and less CO[sub]2[/sub] production per capita, so there is obviously room for improvement for the US.
As for a boycott of US goods, that is simply not likely to happen.
What you aren’t getting is we produce more carbon dioxide than we are a percentage of the world population or than the percentage of the goods we create.
I forget what the figure is, but the US creates around 1/3 of the CO2 worldwide. Maybe if we supplied 50% of the world’s GDP then you’d have a very strong point.
I still don’t think we should have signed it because we simply didn’t agree with it’s provisions. This allows its supporters to get on with it in the form they wanted to without an excessive US compromise to the plan.
I mean, the idea that “If the US doesn’t ratify it then we’re just not gonna impliment it either!” deserves a rolleyes the likes of which this board has never seen. Reducing the greenhouse gasses is, and should be, a priority for every nation regardless of whether or not other nations actually act on it. Frankly, the idea that someone would back out just because someone else won’t partake of it is a political low blow, and akin to weasling the likes of which even DITWD would be proud.
Have you checked yourself for injuries ? From the OP it sounds like you actually experienced a “train wreck of reasoning”. This sort of foaming at the mouth belongs in IMHO or the pit.
I thought I’d just toss this into the thread… (Interesting reading, but probably biased, so whatever).
erislover
I’m looking for a rock-solid cite on this info. I’ve heard that the US produces anywhere from 20% to your new 1/3 of the CO2. However, I’ve also heard that the US produces 25%-30% of the world’s products. Sooooo…
Do you have a cite for the 25% figure, and how is it measured (e.g. % by volume, by cost, etc)?
Firstly, the profit and jobs associated with that manufacturing stay in the US, so you can’t claim that the end user is the only beneficiary of the US’s energy profligacy.
Secondly, if there is any increased cost asssociated with meeting the Kyoto targets (a debatable proposition) some or all of it will be passed on to the end consumer via higher prices so it will not “count against” Americans.
Thirdly – and this is the reasoning behind a boycott – why should the US be allowed to compete on the international market while it continues to impose the external costs of its manufacturing on everybody else?
Maybe, maybe not. I’m sure that a number of countries are looking for an excuse for a bit of America-bashing and depending on how things develop I don’t think the introduction of sanctions against the US by the EU is entirely improbable in the long-run.
Ah, here’s a decent site for 1997 figures…even a nifty pie graph!
http://www.tamug.tamu.edu/labb/Global_Warming_Info.htm
North America was 27.5%, while the US was 23.8%.
So, give or take some figures (if the 25% figure itself was accurate) then we are contributing equally to global warming and economic advancement.
picmr
I really don’t see the connection. Just because the environment is part of the economy, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible to improve the environment while spending more than it’s worth.
TomH
No, I’m assuming that if other countries were forced to produce them themselves, they would suffer economic hardship. In other words, it would cost them more to make them themselvs. I really don’t see how that is not a warranted assumption; if they could make them cheapoer, wouldn’t they be doing so already?
Well, if you include such non-tangible goods such as brand name recognition and intellectual property, all three of those products are partially made in the US, regardless of where their physical aspects are constructed.
Thought I’d mention: this, in a best case scenario, only means we’ll die happy 
But it is nonsense to include those things since the non-tangible constituents of a commodity have no direct environmental impact. A product produced in Europe under an American brand is produced to European, not American, environmental protection standards and the fact that the brand originated in the USA is wholly immaterial.
I’ll rephrase the question: you argue in the OP that the countries which have signed up to Kyoto are somehow being hypocritical by continuing to import goods from the USA. You also suggest that this is because “getting [their] hands on all those nice [American] goods that caused the CO2 is more important … than getting rid of the CO2”.
So tell me, what nice, tangible goods, manufactured in the USA under the US environmental protection regime are those of us in the rest of the world so unwilling to do without? Let’s use Europe as an example since the EU has been rather more bullish than some other regions in the Kyoto negotiations: what manufactured goods do we get from the USA that we could not equally well get elsewhere? Since your entire argument turns on this proposition, I would have thought you should be able to come up with a dozen or mor examples quite easily.
There aren’t necessarily any examples of things the USA is the exclusive provider of, but that’s irrelevant. If the USA does, as figures quoted here claim, produce 25% of the world’s products, then having trade cut off wouldn’t necessarily deprive you of things, but you can be damn sure the prices would go up in a hurry.
Nobody has yet said what percentage of those manufactured goods are consumed in the United States. The United States does have a decent sized trade deficit, you know.
The point I was going to make ITR - the US is also known for being the world’s largest consumer. If, for example, 25% of the world’s goods are manufactured in the US but 30% of the world’s goods are consumed in the US then there is no reason to assume any US manufactured goods are used outside the US.
Without a consumption percentage, the argument from production is meaningless.
pan
This site has some data about the US balance of payments, including this graph which shows that the US imports far more than it exports. The idea that the US is happily producing goods for other countries is false: these 1998 data show that exports equalled only 11% of net GDP, meaning that 89% of net GDP represented consumption of either domestically produced goods or of imports. As we know, the balance of trade has worsened since then, so these figures will not improve. (Bush is on record as displaying his concern over this issue.)
The actual situation, then, is not that other countries are paying the US to produce CO2, but that the US is paying itself to produce CO2. This would be fine if it weren’t for the fact that pollution tends to affect everybody else as well. So while the US gets all the benefit from its industrial sector, it diffuses the environmental cost amongst everyone else. This is somewhat akin to letting your guard dog crap in your neighbours’ gardens. Small wonder then, that other countries protest. Sadly, ceasing to buy US goods as suggested would have little effect; on the other hand, ceasing to sell to the US might well make a difference. (I think that most of these imports represent either raw materials or services such as data crunching, so it might work very well.) Unfortunately, many countries could not afford to cut off such a significant market.
Their solution, i.e to negotiate with the US to produce an acceptable framework for reduction in emissions, while it seems like the rational thing to do in this situation has been rejected out of hand. Moreover, the US seems unwilling to admit that there is a problem, and that it will only become more serious. So, yes, they consider the US position to be selfish.
The truly sad thing is that this is a problem that will only get worse unless concerted action is taken. The US may be unwilling to take that action now, but the day will come when facts must be faced. And the longer things go on as they are, the more expensive and drastic the necessary corrective action will be. So Bush is only protecting American interests now at the (greater) expense of American interests 20, 30, 50 years down the line.
I drive a German car, wear Italian, French and British clothes, eat food grown or reared in europe, live in a house with european furniture. My computer is asian, running an opsys of Finnish origin. My tv is Dutch, my stereo components British or Japanese. So tell me again how I need American goods?
But ignoring the somewhat naive viewpoint that the rest of the world somehow couldn’t survive without American goods, let me ask you this. Do you really think that the best way to resolve this is some form of brinkmanship? You really think the best step forward here for a group of countries who have, in most every way that matters, friendly relationships is to just go to a trade war? If a trade boycott is launched against the US, the US will launch counter boycotts, and the next thing you know we’ve got the worlds first economic war. Oh what fun.
Now, the bottom line of trade wars is that they tend to affect smaller firms more than multinationals. When companies start to feel lean times, it’s indivuals who get laid off. So you really think the best way to solve this issue is to start off a chain of events that’s going to really start hitting individuals and small business for a long time before it starts affecting anyone who can actually exert that much pressure about it. As a separate question, you don’t think that people are going to be reluctant to cave in to what will be seen as pressure tactics, thus making this a serious candidate for really harming relations between people at a time when we need to be working more closely together.
You know, I’m not convinced by the wisdom of this plan.