erl
If you wouldn’t considre the loss of 30% of your personal wealth drastic, could you please forward it to me? It’d be much appreciated. Alternatively, could you tell us which 30% of your brain functions you feel you could afford to lose? Or why you wouldn’t mind being taxed at 30%?
etc. etc. etc.
Whoa, very bad analogy. For that analogy to fit it would have to be assumed that everyone had already implimented such a thing and the US was pulling out. Simply not the case. A more suitable analogy is this:
We get 100% raises if everyone agrees to clean the bathroom. For each employee who doesn’t sign up to it, we lose 30% of that 100%. As it stands, one employee chose not to sign up. How valuable is that 70%?
Very, IMO, and to bitch at the USA for not doing what its supposed to is one thing, but saying that the whole plan is worth shit if we don’t is another entirely, and in my understanding, doesn’t hold water.
I don’t think that russell ever said that it “isn’t worth shit” - he just said that the US non-involvement drastically reduced its effectiveness. Well it does - the treaty is 30% less effective than it would otherwise have been. I fail to see how you can quibble over this.
The agreement is still worth going ahead with, will still help the planet and indeed is still being pursued by everybody else.
pan
In order to make this analogy more accurate:
[ul]
[li]The employee in question would have to make more frequent use of the bathroom than everybody else and have poor aim, pissing all over the floor every time he did so, leaving cigarette butts clogging up the urinal and dropping paper towels all over the floor.[/li][li]The other employees would make much less use of the bathroom than him, and take care to clean up after themselves as they went along. Some of them would hardly ever use the bathroom at all but would still have to put a lot of effort into clearing up his mess.[/li][li]he would already work shorter hours than everybody else, arrriving later in the morning and leaving earlier in the afternoon.*[/li][/ul]
And after all that, those people who did participate would still get only 70% of the reward they would have got if everybody did their fair share.
*The analogy is flawed, but the work cleaning up the bathroom appears to correspond more closely to expense and the reward (a raise) to environmental improvements, so the fact that the US is the richest country on earth is better reflected by lower working hours than higher pay.
Well, yeah, “not worth shit” is a bit of hyperbole there, apologies for that russel, but I don’t find that 30% is drastic in a plan that isn’t even implimented. Frankly, to assume that everyone was going to participate in the first place in placing proportionately equal controls on their emmissions is a political pipe dream, IMO. The fact that the protocol, in fact, allows some countries who are developing to produce more than they otherwise would makes perfect sense. So I guess we can’t even say that all 178 countries are actually fighting emissions, they just support that others should in their place.
Can anyone link this poor misguided soul to a reading of this actual treaty which outlines which countries must cut emmissions and by how much?
My contention is simply this: no worldwide agree ment on anything. Any agreement is a positive step. A country cannot lose ground by keeping the status quo. Maybe I’m looking at things wrong here, but I will await further points.
Tom, I do not like that analogy either. Everyone pisses on the seats in the Earth I live on. In fact, I think an issue here is a (% worldwide CO2 production):(% worldwide land mass) ratio. Does anyone know where, or if there are, figures for this? It would beat pissy and shitty (heh) analogies all to hell.
That figure, if it is available, will reflect population density more than anything else.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Freedom *
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.
Stole the election. Jeez, build a bridge and get over it, will you?
Now for a harsh dose of reality. Kyoto was rejected out of hand by the Congress in 1997. Vote was 95-0 if I recall correctly.
Check out http://www.ee/lists/infoterra/1997/12/0017.html
Also, if I recall correctly, Clinton was the President at the time. Now, answer this question - where were the howls of “outrage” when the treaty was rejected while a liberal jackass was Pres, hmmm?
Tom, I don’t think you are correct. China and India have a higher population density than the US, but they don’t create the CO2 we do. Bottom line: more room, more room to make CO2 in general for a particular country. Not a linear relationship, I’m sure, but still. Portugal simply couldn’t produce as much CO2 as the US, even if it wanted to.
Kimstu - Good for you (no sarcasm intended) re personal and other efforts at low environmental impact living. I can’t quite match you, but my recent job change/move has meant a reduction of commute time to 5 minutes each way. God, I feel virtuous. 
Gary - ever hear the phrase “one-trick pony”?
Learn a new one and I’ll see that you get a biscuit.
Tom H - It shouldn’t be necessary for me to repeat the obvious about current obsessions with the interdependence of foreign trade. But you’ll have to do a better selling job to convince me that the Euros and other nations reluctantly accept U.S. imports they don’t need so that they can sell us their own stuff, which appears to be your latest revelation.
(Clothahump, in case you didn’t pick up on it, Freedom was being sarcastic.)
Now for a harsh dose of reality. Kyoto was rejected out of hand by the Congress in 1997.
“The man who invented the cuckoo clock is dead. This is old news, but good!” 
Thanks C, but we knew that.
Now, answer this question - where were the howls of “outrage” when the treaty was rejected while a liberal jackass [sic] was Pres, hmmm?
Oh, there were indeed quite a few complaints about the passage of the Byrd-Hagel resolution in the Senate while Clinton was still President. Some comments about them are even still floating around on the web: check out this, this, and this, for example. But one reason that Byrd-Hagel was more or less tolerated was that it didn’t reject outright the need for emissions reductions; it was mostly about protesting exemptions for developing countries. In fact, as some of the sources linked to above comment, this increased the international visibility of the emissions-reduction issue and led to more pressure on developing countries to set reduction goals.
Once again, for about the fourth time: there is no question that the greenhouse-gases issue involves a good deal of political posturing, on both sides of the debate. But arguments such as Clothahump’s (and even the arguments in previous posts that were considerably better-reasoned and better supported), attempting to dismiss concerns about greenhouse-gas emissions as being only political posturing, are simply not convincing. Just because these concerns are often diluted by compromise, concessions to political expediency, and economic worries doesn’t mean that they aren’t sincere or well-founded. Attempting to claim otherwise is a feeble denial technique that is getting weaker almost by the day.
For the last time: I have never suggested that. I have suggested that, for many developed, industrialised countries, the impact of the loss of US imports would be trivial in comparison to the loss of the US as an export market.
For the avoidance of doubt, you might like to try reading the OP, thinking about the argument contained therein and then interpreting my posts as if they were responses to that rather than random musings on the state of the world economy. Here are some clues:
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TomH *
**
Well now, Tom. Let’s examine that statement in relation to…let’s say, Great Britain and its trade with the United States.
Here are some clues:
Examining this data from one of our more beloved federal agencies, it appears that in the most recent year for which statistics are available, the U.K. exported over 35 billion dollars worth of goods to America. This is very impressive, until you see that the U.K. imported nearly 43 billion dollars worth of goods from the U.S. over the same time period. Major British imports overall are identified as manufactured goods, machinery, fuels and (shhh!) foodstuffs.
But of course none of that stuff’s important, or related in any way to emissions, right? Interestingly, additional research turns up some provocative items, like the fact that U.S. technology to aid programs for contaminated land remediation in the United Kingdom is considered an important growth sector for U.S. imports to Britain (50% of all British imports of pollution control equipment come from the U.S.). And your efforts to extract maximal oil and gas from the North Sea? It seems that you’re going to need the U.S.’ help with drilling technologies, including remote submarine drilling techniques, floating platforms and offshore storage systems.
And I just have to mention, once again, food - like the more than 1 billion dollars in agricultural and seafood imports from the U.S. to the U.K. annually (Our motto: We Feed The World Trifling Snacks That They Could Easily Do Without, But Somehow Can’t Seem To Give Up).
For the masochistic, here’s a rundown on U.S. exports.
Some of the major export categories include (O.K, I won’t mention food) industrial supplies such as plastics and chemicals, semiconductors, civilian aircraft, aircraft parts and engines (once they break, you’ve got to fix them and the local hardware stores rarely carry what you need), computer accessories and software, telecommunications equipment, pharmaceuticals and medicinal equipment. For the record, exports of tapes and CDs (Britney Spears et al) were dwarfed by meat and poultry exports. I can’t for the life of me see why any nation would want U.S. meat when they could get British beef…um, never mind.
Damn! I forgot to not mention food.
As galt observed, perhaps you can scramble around and make up your losses in many or all of these areas, but it sure as hell will cost you a lot more - less important in a booming economy, but you haven’t had a lot of those lately.
Maybe The Ryan has a point.
Even if Britain joins with the rest of the Western European nations to boycott U.S. goods, balance of trade figures suggest that neither side is going to be able to sit back and comfortably survey the situation without hardship. It all goes back to interlocking needs.
So, you’ve spent much of this discussion touting a world boycott of American goods, suggested it was a realistic option, and led a claque denigrating the importance of U.S. imports which was largely based on posters’ perceptions of their tastes in common consumer goods. I believe those positions have been substantially undermined.
Incidentally, I can’t believe I missed this one the first time around. kabbes stated that if 25% of the world’s goods are made in the U.S. but 30% of the world’s goods are consumed in the U.S., that means there’s no reason to assume any U.S. manufactured goods are used outside the U.S. (!)
People in the business of marketing dental services or hair restoring tonics should rejoice at this statement, because any economist viewing it would immediately start gnashing his teeth and tearing his hair out.
What a classic.
TomH
No, it’s not a circular argument. A circular argument is of the form “A proves B. B proves A”. If you’re going to accuse your opponents of logical fallacies, you should at least learn what they consist of first.
But if they can domestically produce the goods, but aren’t, then that is evidence that it would be harmful to their economy to do so. How many times do I have to repeat this basic piece of economics until you get it?
Have I somewhere claimed that import restrictions on bananas hurts the EU more than the US?
That makes absolutely no economic sense. What possible use would exporting goods to the US serve if you can’t import anything? Do you think people in other countries are trying to get dollars because they like the pretty pictures on them?
In other words, you demand that I provide examples to prove a blatantly obvious claim, and then when I do so you dismiss them out of hand. I guess I should have just continued to ignore you after all.
Blind? Blind to what? Have you given an answer to the question below that I just haven’t seen?
Because unless you can explain this behavior, which makes absolutely no sense unless US products are important to the world economy, it seems to me that you are the one with “blind faith”.
Again, you are simply exposing your vast ignorance of economics. What possible reason would the rest of the world have to fear the US refusing to buy anything, if it (the US) doesn’t sell anything?
This is not the first time I have corrected you after you attacked a straw man. I never said that the rest of the world cannot do without US goods, and your continued insistence in misrepresenting my position is rather dishonest.
If the rest of the world were to stop buying US products, it (the rest of the world) could, theoretically, keep exporting products to the US. However, that would be like a “strike” in which the workers refuse to take their paychecks, yet continue working. It makes absolutely no sense.
Kimstu
This thread isn’t about which country deserves the most credit. This thread is about the huge numbers of foreigners taking the moral high ground and claiming that the US is a “rogue nation” simply for not agreeing with them on this issue. I freely grant that other countries are making efforts that the US is not, and the US is making other efforts that most, if not all, of the rest of the world is not. Painting the US as evil simply because it has different ideas about the environment is not productive.
Amrussell
Well, there are people demanding exactly that.
No, actually, the Kyoto treaty says that developing countries are special cases and get to produce more emissions. Kyoto really gives the US the short end of the stick.
The Ryan
President Reagan once had a sign on his desk that read, “There is no limit to what a man can accomplish if he doesn’t care who gets the credit.”
IMHO the Kyoto Treaty is based on the converse principle. Forget accomplishments! It’s all about who gets the credit.
Green leaders get PR credit for “making a start.” Political leaders get credit with green voters for signing on. Nations in the Playground of Man soberly discuss which child-state is nicer or meaner. Even Straight Dopers debate who deserves credit and blame.
This pleasant credit/blame game helps everyone ignore the fact that the Kyoto Treaty is not going to solve the global warming problem. How rude of W to walk away from the sandbox in search of adults!
We need a solution to global warming that’s shorter on credit and longer on accomplishments.
Oh, come off it with this whole “everyone is worried about who gets the credit” BS. I don’t give a shit who gets the credit…If Bush comes up with some real significant and substantive proposals to deal with the global warming issue. However, at the moment, his whole energy policy etc. is tilted in the other direction. That’s why this analogy of Bush going off to act like an adult sounds so pathetic. Fine, if he wants to act like an adult when it comes to this issue, I would be more than happy to see him do so. In the meantime, the U.S. richly deserves all the scorn of the rest of the world on this issue.
Some of you on the “anti-credit” side don’t seem to have any problem with having the U.S. taking the credit for various economic and military accomplishments over the last half century. Why do you get so squeamish all of a sudden when the topic turns to an area where the U.S. is not currently pulling its own weight?
I could be wrong about this, but dollars are a commodity in and of themselves that any country would be glad to have in vast piles as a result of a perfect trade imbalance towards exporting.
What the bloody thundering fuck are you talking about? Do you intentionally misread statements so that you can thrash vainly at them?
I can only conclude that you have a particular genious for only remembering the previous sentence of anything you are reading. Context is all. This is what I stated:
Note that this was after ITR Champion said
in response to galt’s misunderstanding that
In other words, galt was assuming that just because 25% of the world’s products are produced in the US, other countries must be using a vast amount of US products. ITR and I were pointing out in response that there is no reason to assume that. In fact it is entirely possible for a country to produce 99% of the world’s output and use it all itself. That 25% figure is meaningless without knowing how much of it is consumed by the US itself. In other words, there is no need to assume that any of the 25% sees the outside world.
Now of course in reality some does. But apparently more goes to the US than from the US anyway. So the US’s net output would indeed appear to be less than zero.
Geez - you’re one of the most confrontational posters I’ve ever seen in GD. You force normally mild mannered exponents of the debating art to either descend to your level or leave insults untouched. Personally, I’d resolved not to touch you again with a ten foot pole, but there’s no way I can leave that kind of slur on my intelligence alone.
pan
Not really. The reason they are so valuable is that people know that even if something happens to the local economy, they can go to the US and get valuable stuff with their dollars. People don’t want the dollars just to have dollars, they want dollars so they can buy stuff with them.
You’re right, they would, if they knew that if there were ever anything they needed from the US more than they need cash, they can just buy it. While it looks like there’s a trade imbalance, there isn’t really. For every dollar of imports the US takes, the US either exports one dollar of goods, or exports one dollar of financial obligation. Since dollars can be traded in for goods at any time, a dollar of financial obligation from the US really is worth a dollar. But if other countries become incapable of cashing in on the obligations the US has promised, then those obligations become useless. Let me put it another way: suppose there is a very successful company that is making a lot of money. However, they are located on Mars and there is no cost-efficient way of getting any of there products, including dividends, to Earth. How much would you pay for a share of their stock?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by kabbes *
**
Except that both common sense and evidence presented here by other posters tells us that there are many basic U.S. commodities, specialized products and technologies that importing nations (such as your own) utilize and which in numerous cases cannot be readily replaced should American imports somehow vanish. As some sort of philosophical conundrum, your argument is interesting. In the context of this debate, the “U.S. net output = zero” concept is a bizarre and foolish attempt at denying America’s role in the international marketplace. **
I derided your argument, not you personally. Try not to entangle your ego in your debate tactics.
By the way, in posting this tiger-like response, did you have recourse to a phone booth in order to change your outward appearance from that of a “mild-mannered exponent of the debating art”?