Kyoto- put your money where your mouth is

[TomH]

*Originally posted by galt *
There aren’t necessarily any examples of things the USA is the exclusive provider of, but that’s irrelevant.

No, it’s not irrelevant, since the OP’s argument is predicated on the assumption that the rest of the world is so pitifully desparate to get its hands on US-made goods that it won’t stand up to the US over Kyoto.

It needn’t even be the exclusive provier, it might be that some US-made goods are of such significantly higher quality or lower cost that equivalent non-US products are not really close substitutes. But I don’t think that abstract arguments about comparative advantage will do the job in this case.

I’m sure that The Ryan will be able to come up with numerous examples off the top of his head pretty soon.

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.

I’m still waiting for waterj2, who posted that figure, to come back with a cite. I’m not sure that I believe it, especially since the US has been running a balance of trade deficit for the past however many years.

Otherwise, ITR Champion, kabbes, amrussell have pretty much covered it, other than to say that, if the 25% figure is a proportion of the value of all goods (as I suspect it might be), then it might reflect the fact that US goods are more expensive than others. Also, cutting off US goods wouldn’t necessarily cause prices to rise if the non-US goods were cheaper, which the 25% figure (if it is accurate) suggests they might be.

[erislover]

In an otherwise beautiful post I caught this:

So while the US gets all the benefit from its industrial sector, it diffuses the environmental cost amongst everyone else.

The US is not the only country that benefits from our economy. Our utter extinction wouldn’t destroy the world, but it would surely be felt.

[Gary_Kumquat]

*Originally posted by erislover *
The US is not the only country that benefits from our economy. Our utter extinction wouldn’t destroy the world, but it would surely be felt. **

Which could equally be said about any nation. We all benefit from the existence of other nations. We all have something to add, from both a financial and cultural perspective.

By the same token to say that any one nation, or subset of nations, has an exclusive moral high ground on this issue is deeply untrue. That’s why continuing to participate in conversations on this issue is of the utmost importance - like most complicated problems, it will be best solved by the input of all.

Which is one strong reason for why deciding to just ditch Kyoto, without any further negotiations, was a very questionable move. It alienated the people who placed great importance on this issue. It polarised view points, and led to a more confrontational stance between countries. Not exactly an ideal result for anyone.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by Gary Kumquat *
By the same token to say that any one nation, or subset of nations, has an exclusive moral high ground on this issue is deeply untrue.

Right.

Which is one strong reason for why deciding to just ditch Kyoto, without any further negotiations, was a very questionable move.

Sounds like you’re standing on the highground there. How is that, if there is none?

I think that the US staying in with the plan would only make a bigger headache for the countries who were ready to go ahead without any more compromise. Hopefully Congress realizes the importance of doing something positive, and voers and lpbby groups can put enough pressure on.

[Gary_Kumquat]

*Originally posted by erislover *
Sounds like you’re standing on the highground there. How is that, if there is none?

Yawn. How I love people who try for the cheap points. If you think that asking people to come back to a negotiating table is assuming a moral high ground, then I’d be most interested in hearing your logic behind that viewpoint.

[woolly]

*Originally posted by picmr *
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.

My reading is the same. However, if trading in carbon credits becomes established then obviously the production of CO2 has a commercial cost and these environmental costs should be built into the cost of production (and the price).

Consequently, if it were demonstrated in the WTO/GATT that a country was exporting goods below the sustainable/total cost of production, then the scenario of dumping duties being leviable comes into play.

I suspect that it won’t come to this. As soon as a market mechanism is established that confers a material benefit to low greenhouse manufacturers, they will begin to switch. The walls of resistance are imposing, but they will come crashing down and largely due to internal, rather than exteral forces.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by Gary Kumquat *
If you think that asking people to come back to a negotiating table is assuming a moral high ground, then I’d be most interested in hearing your logic behind that viewpoint.

If that’s what you said I’d be happy to have never said the comment in the first place.

By the figures I cited above, the rest of the world produces about 70-odd percent of CO2. A large group of people acting on Kyoto will have an effect. The fundamental question of each nation is, “Should we do something?” The answer: yes. One can arrive at this answer without looking at any other nation. If Kyoto doesn’t go through because the US didn’t want to be a part of it the blame falls on the countries who professed its necessity in the first place and backed down.

An important issue is, after all, an important issue.

[waterj2]

I’m still waiting for waterj2, who posted that figure, to come back with a cite. I’m not sure that I believe it, especially since the US has been running a balance of trade deficit for the past however many years.

All I said was that I saw it in the other thread. Certainly there is no doubting that the US produces a ton of manufactured goods, and exports quite a lot of that. The exact figure isn’t necessary for my argument, but if you want it, ask Tedster, he posted it here as well.

I have no trouble believing that the US exports far more products whose manufacture produces greenhouse gasses than it imports. Certainly, we also consume a lot per capita as well. I’m just trying to show that the US is in a different situation than other countries, and that the issues are more complex than just saying that the US is the big bad polluter and that the solution that the EU wants is in the US’s best interest.

Frankly, I doubt that the EU acts in anything but its own interests (for example, it’s always Boeing and never Airbus that seems to run afoul of any new EU regulations). The US never seems to, why would the EU be any more noble? Thus, I see no reason for the US to necessarily trust any EU-backed regulation. The EU wants to level the playing field with the US, and uses its many votes in the UN and on treaties as leverage.

[TomH]

*Originally posted by waterj2 *
Certainly there is no doubting that the US produces a ton of manufactured goods, and exports quite a lot of that … I have no trouble believing that the US exports far more products whose manufacture produces greenhouse gasses than it imports. Certainly, we also consume a lot per capita as well.

The US’s balance of trade deficit tends to cast doubt on the idea that it is producing most of the rest of the world’s goods.

I’m just trying to show that the US is in a different situation than other countries …

How? Just because it is an exporter (and not even one that runs a balance of trade surplus)? How about the rest of the industrialised world? It seems that much of the specious rationale for rejecting Kyoto is that the USA is somehow “different” or “special”.

Frankly, I doubt that the EU acts in anything but its own interests …

Agreed. And a sustainable environment is in the interests of the EU countries as much as any other country.

Thus, I see no reason for the US to necessarily trust any EU-backed regulation

The Kyoto protocol is backed not only by the EU but by the whole of the rest of the world. The USA is the one country that’s out of step.

[Jackmannii]

*Originally posted by TomH *
**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?)…
Perhaps you could list some of the things which the rest of the world can get only by importing them from the USA? **

Gee Tom, I’m not an economist but I can readily think of several major American categories of exports which “the world” cannot easily do without:

1. Food. The agricultural export sector is tremendous. We literally feed the world.

2. Technology.

3. Pharmaceuticals.

4. Arms. You’ll be much less efficient in killing yourselves without the aid of good old American weaponry.

And last but not least, there’s guilt. America surely leads the world in the production of guilt. Our phony liberals spew it out like cows emit methane.

In fact, if guilt was gasoline, we’d have a long-term solution to the world energy crisis.

If only it was a cleaner-burning fuel.

[waterj2]

The US’s balance of trade deficit tends to cast doubt on the idea that it is producing most of the rest of the world’s goods.

Yes, the US does import a lot of stuff. However, a lot of that stuff is raw materials and food.

How? Just because it is an exporter (and not even one that runs a balance of trade surplus)? How about the rest of the industrialised world? It seems that much of the specious rationale for rejecting Kyoto is that the USA is somehow “different” or “special”.

The US economy depends (I believe, these things are rather impossible to quantify) on industries that produce CO[sub]2[/sub] moreso than the EU does. They don’t have to be special to reject Kyoto. As a sovereign nation, it is the privelege of the US to not enter treaties or agreements that it doesn’t think are in its best interest. I’m merely arguing that The US’s interest is different than the EU’s.

Agreed. And a sustainable environment is in the interests of the EU countries as much as any other country.

The Kyoto Treaty is not the One True Path to a sustainable environment. There are several different approaches that could be used, balancing economic and environmental tradeoffs differently. The Kyoto Treaty balances them in a way that is more economically favorable (in the US’s estimation) to the EU than to the US. Why? Because the EU has more political clout in internationalpolitics than does the US.

The Kyoto protocol is backed not only by the EU but by the whole of the rest of the world. The USA is the one country that’s out of step.

I’m discounting the opinions of any country, such as China or India, that is considered “developing” and thus exempt from being required to do anything, as it is in their best interest to sign anything that looks halfway decent on paper. I’m also discounting Japan, because it has also, AFAIK, not actually agreed to the current version. What other non-EU bastions of support does the treaty have that are actually required to do anything? Taiwan and Canada, I guess; others?

[galt]

*Originally posted by TomH *

*Originally posted by galt *
There aren’t necessarily any examples of things the USA is the exclusive provider of, but that’s irrelevant.

No, it’s not irrelevant, since the OP’s argument is predicated on the assumption that the rest of the world is so pitifully desparate to get its hands on US-made goods that it won’t stand up to the US over Kyoto.

You’re reading too much into the OP’s argument. The argument is not “you specifically need the USA’s goods.” It is “you need goods. The USA is one very large supplier of goods. If you cut off trade with the USA, you will reduce the overall supply of certain goods. Whether you admit it or not, that will affect you negatively.” It has nothing to do with quality or exclusivity. Let go of those points.

[TomH]

*Originally posted by Jackmannii *
Gee Tom, I’m not an economist but I can readily think of several major American categories of exports which “the world” cannot easily do without:

1. Food. The agricultural export sector is tremendous. We literally feed the world.

Literally? You meant the rest of the world would starve without US food imports? Come off it!

And besides which, agriculture is not a major CO2 producer, so even if you were right, it would be irrelevant.

2. Technology.

As answers go, this is pretty much on a par with “stuff”.

3. Pharmaceuticals.

Pharmaceuticals are produced all over the world.

4. Arms. You’ll be much less efficient in killing yourselves without the aid of good old American weaponry.

Quite possibly. The US has also refused to enter into a UN-backed agreement intended to limit small arms proliferation, which suggests that Bush also believes that the right to export limitless supplies of arms to unstable regions of the world is also essential for the smooth running of the US economy.

And last but not least, there’s guilt.

You left out shamelessness and humbug.

Originally posted by galt
The argument is not “you specifically need the USA’s goods.” It is “you need goods. The USA is one very large supplier of goods. If you cut off trade with the USA, you will reduce the overall supply of certain goods. Whether you admit it or not, that will affect you negatively.” It has nothing to do with quality or exclusivity.

If that is what the OP is arguing – and The Ryan has yet to come back and defend it so we can’t be sure – then it’s a pretty lame argument. The same would apply to trade embargoes against virtually any country in the world, including the likes of Iraq.

In any event, if the US is such a major exporter, it is likely that those countries whose domestic industries are competing with their US counterparts would stand to gain from the protecting effect of an embargo against America.

[Stanislaus]

*Originally posted by galt *
You’re reading too much into the OP’s argument. The argument is not “you specifically need the USA’s goods.” It is “you need goods. The USA is one very large supplier of goods. If you cut off trade with the USA, you will reduce the overall supply of certain goods. Whether you admit it or not, that will affect you negatively.” It has nothing to do with quality or exclusivity. Let go of those points. **

Well yeah, but the extent to which they affect us negatively depends entirely on the quality, price and exclusivity of the goods that we can no longer obtain. If we lose a small amount of goods which we can obtain elsewhere at the same quality for the same price, there’s almost no negative effect. So it is vital to determine exactly what goods are at stake here.
Interestingly, of the examples listed by Jackmanii, Food and Pharmaceuticals have minimal CO2 costs (bovine emissions not withstanding). Technology may have more, depending on if we’re talking software or hardware; even hardware doesn’t require that much CO2 production I think. Other than arms, I can’t think of any major manufacturing industry of the US that has huge exports. Heavy stuff like cars tend to be produced in the continent for which they’re intended.

On preview: Yeah, what TomH said. Tchaah.

[Kimstu]

The Ryan: *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. *

I continue to be baffled by this belief, apparently shared by many opponents of the Kyoto protocol, that the nations who support it are not in the process of “actually carrying it out” and “backing up their words with actions”. Irrespective of whether they end up ratifying the protocol or not, many other nations (unlike the US) are already mandating and achieving significant emissions reductions. If you want Kyoto supporters to “put their money where their mouth is”, you seem to have missed the fact that many of them are already doing it. From this report:

The 15 European Union countries recorded a 4.0% reduction between 1990 and 1999 in their combined emissions of the six “greenhouse” gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, according to the latest emissions inventory produced by the European Environment Agency.

The cut takes the EU half way towards achieving the Kyoto target of reducing its emissions of these gases to 8% below their 1990 level by the years 2008-2012. The EU is responsible for 24% of industrialised countries’ man-made emissions of the six gases.

(In this same period, of course, the US emissions of greenhouse gases rose substantially. Part of this has to do with our increased economic production, it’s true, but most of it is simply due to the fact that we continue to subsidize outdated dirty technology much more heavily than most other developed countries do.)

Tom H and others are right: whatever you think of the specific virtues and limitations of the Kyoto protocol per se, the old “American exceptionalism” arguments are simply not adequate to go on justifying US refusals to confront the emissions problem at all. Face it, this is a serious and complicated situation with important ramifications for everyone on the globe. Trying to dismiss it with “well, we’re the US and things are different for us, and anyway you obviously aren’t dealing with it any better than we are and all your concerns are really just anti-US posturing because you’re dumb and you hate us!” is just no longer working, folks.

[g8rguy]

I just have a general curiousity question: How much can the United States’ relatively large production of greenhouse gases be attributed to the fact that the US simultaneously has a strong economy and a relatively low population density? I don’t know a great deal about this subject, but the US is fairly spread out, so I wonder what effects this has on our greenhouse gas production.

A few numbers to support my claim. And first, I guess I’d better explain where I got them. Going here, you can get most of these figures. Since Alaska is very large, very sparsely populated, and (I assume) not exactly a major economic center, I looked up it’s size and population here and subtracted those off. Note that Eastern Europe substantially skews the results for Europe as a whole, just as Alaska does for the US.
Region… Pop/sq mile
US… 74
US (sans Alaska)… 87
Europe… 82
N. Europe… 142
W. Europe… 429
S. Europe… 285
E. Europe… 42
Europe (sans E. Europe)… 264
My point with this data is just that the US is obviously very spread out compared to most of Europe, and this must surely have some impact on the emissions. I’m asking the board in general to suggest how MUCH of an impact this might have.

[Jackmannii]

*Originally posted by TomH *
**

*Originally posted by Jackmannii *
Gee Tom, I’m not an economist but I can readily think of several major American categories of exports which “the world” cannot easily do without:

1. Food. The agricultural export sector is tremendous. We literally feed the world.

Literally? You meant the rest of the world would starve without US food imports? Come off it!

And besides which, agriculture is not a major CO2 producer, so even if you were right, it would be irrelevant.**

Food exports from the U.S. total about 53 billion dollars worth this year, over 40% to Asian countries, about 12% to the EU. That’s an interesting level of reliance on American food even without failed crops, floods etc. But I guess in your estimation there’s plenty of food for everyone all over the world; just visit your local grocery store and there’s everything you need.
As for agriculture not being a major CO2 producer, a) I doubt this, and b) how spectacularly irrelevant to the discussion. You asked what the U.S. could possibly make that the rest of the world needs - food is one answer. Here’s a bit of education for you. Whether or not agriculture is a source of CO2 has no bearing on anything, unless you want other nations to pick and choose import bans based on what is thought to be polluting. Faced with such an unlikely prospect, the U.S. could well impose tariffs or bans based on its economic needs.**

2. Technology.

As answers go, this is pretty much on a par with “stuff”.**

And as ignorance goes, this is on a par with “appalling”.
If you really can’t think of any important U.S. technology, I’ll wager that taking a look at what’s on your computer might provide a spark. Does the word “Microsoft” compute? How about the field of information technology as a whole? Satellite technology? Telecommunications technology? Oil drilling technology? Food processing technology? Medical technology? Can you think of any more? I knew you could!!**

3. Pharmaceuticals.

Pharmaceuticals are produced all over the world.**

Sure they are. And we also have a disproportionate share of research into and production of new drugs.**

And last but not least, there’s guilt.

You left out shamelessness and humbug.**

No, I think we’ve got a ways to go to catch up with the EU.

Come to think of it, I didn’t sufficiently emphasize the vital nature of our entertainment industry as an export commodity. Based on the obsessive nature of European interest in our affairs, it’s obvious that things are so dull abroad that foreign psyches would absolutely collapse without the stimulus of Britney Spears CDs and the like.

By the way, I loved Kimstu’s link on how the EU is doing wonders with reducing CO2 emissions. I’ve always wanted to see an official Namibian website.
Interesting though that the 2 nations supposedly responsible for EU emissions cuts (England and Germany) in recent years are now spewing out increased CO2 again. And Germany only achieved temporary reductions in the first place largely through shutting down East German factories - i.e. throwing people out of work. No pain, no gain, huh? Here’s looking at you, America.

And here’s a not-so-revolutionary idea: why not start a worldwide movement of concerned individuals who will voluntarily forego having children and energy-consuming lifestyles in order to protect the planet? You don’t have to rely on governments to do your good deeds for you. Let’s see some dedication out there. If even half of those of you who voted for Al (Earth Is My Controlling Authority) Gore drastically decrease your level of consumption, America will surely exceed Kyoto’s goals.

[Kimstu]

Jackmannii: replied to Tom H: *“You left out shamelessness and humbug.”

No, I think we’ve got a ways to go to catch up with the EU.*

But with you on our team, Jack, we’re rapidly overtaking them…

*Based on the obsessive nature of European interest in our affairs, it’s obvious that things are so dull abroad…

By the way, I loved Kimstu’s link on how the EU is doing wonders with reducing CO2 emissions. I’ve always wanted to see an official Namibian website.*

If you would prefer to see the report posted on the official website of the European Economic Agency, have a blast, okay? I picked the mirror site I originally linked to 'cause I could read the print better.

Interesting though that the 2 nations supposedly responsible for EU emissions cuts (England and Germany) in recent years are now spewing out increased CO2 again. And Germany only achieved temporary reductions in the first place largely through shutting down East German factories - i.e. throwing people out of work.

Nice selective reporting! You don’t bother to mention the other stated factors, i.e., “increased use of gas in power generation in both countries” and “improvements in Germany’s energy efficiency”.

*No pain, no gain, huh? Here’s looking at you, America.

And here’s a not-so-revolutionary idea: why not start a worldwide movement of concerned individuals who will voluntarily forego having children and energy-consuming lifestyles in order to protect the planet? You don’t have to rely on governments to do your good deeds for you. Let’s see some dedication out there. If even half of those of you who voted for Al (Earth Is My Controlling Authority) Gore drastically decrease your level of consumption, America will surely exceed Kyoto’s goals.*

Jackmannii, I’m afraid you’re just making my case for me. Other posters bring up serious points about the complicated environmental and economic issues of emissions reductions, and you—even you, who often make very thoughtful and insightful posts on GD threads—respond mostly with childish taunts and Europe-bashing insults. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that you just don’t have any better arguments available.

[Jackmannii]

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
**Jackmannii: replied to Tom H: *“You left out shamelessness and humbug.”

No, I think we’ve got a ways to go to catch up with the EU.*

But with you on our team, Jack, we’re rapidly overtaking them… :)**

Speaking of responding with “childish taunts”…**

Interesting though that the 2 nations supposedly responsible for EU emissions cuts (England and Germany) in recent years are now spewing out increased CO2 again. And Germany only achieved temporary reductions in the first place largely through shutting down East German factories - i.e. throwing people out of work.

Nice selective reporting! You don’t bother to mention the other stated factors, i.e., “increased use of gas in power generation in both countries” and “improvements in Germany’s energy efficiency”.**

I had to bring up the newly increased British/German CO2 emissions and the German factory shutdowns having a major role in earlier temporary cuts, Kimstu, because you (selectively) failed to do so.

I will make an addition to your holiday gift list: along with a sense of humor, you badly need a sense of irony.

It remains an interesting question as to what posters appalled by U.S. policy are doing to bring about collective action as private citizens to lower CO2 emissions. Why is it not legitimate to postulate organized activity by individuals, to lower bloated living standards to what is needed for a simple yet rewarding existence, knowing you are benefiting everyone?
Do you contribute to worthy causes only if you are assured that everyone else is doing so?

[kabbes]

The UK is committed to a minimum of 10% of its power deriving from renewable resources by the end of the decade. Is that enough action for you? Just today there was a story on the radio about National Power building a giant wind farm in Scotland, thus increasing our wind power by 50%. Tidal and wave power generators are being erected around our coasts. We are actively working towards reducing emissions. What are you doing?

pan