Jackmannii replied to 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.
Um, Jackmannii, it seems to me that kabbes said exactly that in the paragraph immediately following the one you quoted: “…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.” That is, some of that 25% does go on to become those “basic commodities, specialized products and technologies that importing nations utilize.” kabbes is not trying to pretend that the U.S. doesn’t export anything.
*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 think you’re not quite getting his point. It was an attempt to explain that in fact, the U.S. can have a “role in the international marketplace” while still having a net output of less than zero. I hope galt got it, at least!
P.S. Good for you too on the 5-minute commute, but be warned that the Car Talk guys agree that one of the worst things you can do to your car is to take it on lots of frequent short trips: gets the engine heated up enough to produce condensation but not enough to evaporate it away, hence rust. Recommendations include biking or walking or busing to work when possible, and most importantly, taking the car on one good (0.5+ hour) trip a week or so in order to let the engine clean itself out. Just a friendly message from the Transit Queen.
Geez - (to quote our esteemed British friend), Kimstu, can you really explain how this constitutes a meaningful response to the OP? I’d say kabbes is up to his axillae in denial.
Thanks for the car tip. I’ll have to leave the engine idling while I stop off for doughnuts on the way.
Incidentally, making any progress on distinguishing reporting from advocacy?
Ultimately, yes, but as observed in another thread, there are several countries around the world using U.S. currency, and more that are interested in trading for those dollars that can ultimately be used to purchase U.S. goods. So, sitting in my castle in Hanselvania, I’d be very happy with piles of U.S. cash for my exports unless the U.S. completely shut off all exports to everyone, and those countries currently using the U.S. dollar simply stopped., in which case they would be irredeemable. Not a likely scenario at all.
Well, I might take a pop at it. The OP stated that it was hypocritical of other countries to label the US as a big nasty polluter when they were the root cause of the pollution:
Various people have stepped up to say that in actual fact the US does keep the vast majority of its goods to itself and, as kabbes points out, that it is a net importer (i.e its contribution to international trade is less than 0). This means that, effectively, the US is paying more for products manufactured to higher environmental controls than it is receiving to manufacture goods to lower standards. So it is still a net polluter. Furthermore, the OP seeks to exculpate the US on the grounds that foreign demand forces it to make goods and thus CO2. However, other countries, whose exports to the US are of a proportionally higher value - and thus, following the logic of the OP, represent a higher proportion of “not my fault CO2”, are still able and willing to effect changes which will reduce CO2. So the excuse that demand is external rather than internal is shown to be just that - an excuse.
Also, the assertion that there is no such thing as a trade imbalance because each missing dollar represents financial obligation is false. The reason that economists and politicians worry about unfavourable trade imbalances is precisely because of the absence of obligation.
If country A sells goods to the value of £n to country B, buys goods from B to the value of £m, and n > m then country A has simply made a profit, and owes country B nothing. If you were playing Monopoly, you wouldn’t swap a set of streets for a get out of jail free card because it created an obligation on your opponent to pay you the difference.
Add to this the fact that a) these “missing” dollars can be spent anywhere, and need never return to the US, and b) that they have a value on the world currency markets which is entirely divorced from their purchasing power and c) these dollars can be converted on these same markets to another currency, then it should be clear that an imbalance of trade is exactly what it says it is.
Oh, and if it’s just a five minute drive, walk or get a bike. Cleaner and greener, and bit of exercise to boot.
Jackmannii: *Kimstu, can you really explain how this constitutes a meaningful response to the OP? *
What amrussell said (thanks amr!).
*Thanks for the car tip. I’ll have to leave the engine idling while I stop off for doughnuts on the way.
Incidentally, making any progress on distinguishing reporting from advocacy? *
? Er, doing fine, thanks—did I miss something here? Are you suggesting that car tips from the Car Talk guys are somehow biased in favor of some kind of “advocacy”? (I’d say they certainly are, especially when it comes to environmentalism and conservation, but I don’t think that undermines the validity of this particular tip about running your engine.) If not, I don’t quite see what your rather pointed insinuation has to do with the discussion at hand.
amrussell: *Oh, and if it’s just a five minute drive, walk or get a bike. Cleaner and greener, and bit of exercise to boot. *
That’d be my preference, but as one of our European posters (if I haven’t misplaced you :)) you may not be familiar with the “car-exclusiveness” of some American urban or suburban areas. There are plenty of places that are only five minutes’ drive from a residential area that one literally (and I use “literally” literally ;)) cannot legally or safely reach except in a vehicle. It may very well not be possible for Jackmannii to walk or bike his two-three miles to work, even if he’d like to.
Again, zilch to do with the OP. Regardless of whether the U.S. buys lots of raw materials, consumer goods etc. from other nations, it’s still selling plenty of goods to other nations (including for example Great Britain, which imports from more than it exports to the U.S.). Those goods don’t vanish because the U.S. is a net importer. They’re real and their purchase has consequences. Cut off those imports and fewer emissions will be generated. If you then export less to the U.S. your production will fall and your emissions will drop, a winning equation from some points of view.
Talking about our contribution to world trade being less than zero is mere sophistry.
To return to one weird point made earlier in this discussion, i.e. the belief that food production doesn’t entail much in the way of CO2 production: I think a few of you must have some idyllic 19th century image of farmers hand-sowing and weeding their crops, then maybe running a solar-powered harvester in the fall. In most industrialized nations, a great deal of fuel is expended to till the soil, harvest crops and spray chemicals. Fertilizer and farm chemicals must be produced through energy-consuming processes. Crops must arrive at their markets, stored at appropriate temperature and humidity and be shipped to processors, who use ever more energy to make Soy Dogs and other staples of modern cuisine. That stuff is in turn shipped to end points and much of it finds its way abroad, like the billion dollars worth that Great Britain imports annually . So we’re talking about lots of CO2 emissions connected with food production. Buy it and you’re part of the problem.**
To add to what Kimstu said, bicyclists are viewed as usurpers and trash by many American motorists, so there’s a safety issue. But I plan to bike some.
This is true, no doubt…although I think it can be exagerated. And cars ain’t so safe themselves, as my friend working in the trauma unit at the hospital can well attest to!
I’ve spent some time wondering what kinds of risks I am putting myself in by bicycling around a fair bit in car-oriented Rochester. It’s hard to say, but one thing worth pointing out is that there are some situations where I’d probably rather be on a bicycle than in a car…e.g., if a drunk driver heading the other way swerves into my lane.
I wonder how many things The Ryan has lying around his house/apartment that say “Made in China” on them. I’m guessing The Ryan is not a fan of the Chinese government (neither am I, for that matter). Does this make The Ryan a hypocrite?
I don’t understand the point of the OP in any case. Bush rejected the Kyoto framework only six months ago. Since then some countries have been holding out the faint hope that the US will return to the table (until Bush’s recent comments laid any such notions to rest). Thus leveling a charge of hypocrisy seems a bit premature – some type of trade war may indeed develop if the US remains belligerent on this issue. Not this year, probably, but within this decade I think it could certainly happen. Will that make The Ryan and Jackmannii happy?
Finally, on the subject of food, if in fact America did “literally feed the world,” than what is the world supposed to do? Starve themselves to death to protest our rejection of Kyoto?
jack - we still don’t know how much the outside world imports US goods though! The whole point was that the fact that the US produces 25% of goods doesn’t mean anything, because we don’t know how much of that 25% stays in the US. Obviously some of that 25% is exported, but how much?
Also, in the absence of imports, countries would have to make their own goods. It is reasonable therefore to net off the exports when looking at to what extent “the world pays the US to produce CO[sub]2[/sub]”.
Alternatively if you don’t wish to do this, we could agree that “the world pays the US to produce CO[sub]2[/sub]” but then by your argument would have to conclude that, head for head, “the US pays the world EVEN MORE to produce EVEN MORE CO[sub]2[/sub]”. And yet the rest of the world seems mysteriously to agree that reducing CO-sub]2[/sub] emmisions would be a good thing.
Either way the argument from the OP that says we should quit our whinging because we use the stuff that produces the CO[sub]2[/sub] is negated.
Interesting thread. Certainly intrigued by the stats.
Couple of questions:
what was the rationale for the Bush administration’s rejection of the treaty? Is it actually that carbon dioxide emissions aren’t doing damage to the environment, or that simply the treaty is unworkable?
can someone explain how carbon sinks work?
A boycott against US goods in protest is unlikely to work economically as I see it (if indeed the US consumes most of its GDP) but a broad public boycott would have a “moral” effect if well publicised. If the US public thinks they are the “bad guys” in the fight against global warming by the rest of the planet, then that might create a groundswell of public opinion. Two problems with that, though:
a. the general public in other countries possibly don’t appreciate the effect of global warming. There was some symbolism to the treaty - many people viewed it as, finally, a globally co-ordinated step to do something about global warming. But would this be enough to stop people buying McDonald’s cheesburgers?
b. as a broad generalisation, the US public is pretty insular anyway. No one really seemed to notice when the US was booted off the HRC (it made front page news on the China Daily).
No one has addressed this thoughtful comment by picmr, either, unless I missed it:
Its the “bought” element I’d like to focus on. Despite the stats and the arguments here, is the truth of this simply that strong economic interests in the US buried this treaty? Otherwise, where is the US alternative to the “unworkable” Kyoto accord?
See previous links re data on Western Europe and the U.S.
World data should be readily available elsewhere. Further discussion might be more profitable in a thread devoted specifically to metaphysical implications of world trade.
And I think we’ve gotten far too Eurocentric here. The only nations that really would have the power to influence the U.S. on this issue through trade restrictions/boycotts are the “less developed” nations like China, South Korea, Malaysia etc. which contribute so heavily to our trade deficit. And maybe also Japan. But “developing” nations are off the hook re meeting Kyoto accords, plus make big bucks off our imports, so have little excuse or motivation for coming down on America. And given the state of Japan’s economy, they’re not about to risk a trade war.
Come winter, I may travel to work by sleigh. Does anyone know if Labradors make good sled dogs?
Well, as they have explained it, their main complaints are that it is unfair because it doesn’t restrain the emissions of developing countries and that it will harm the U.S. economy. (Of course, they don’t explain why they think it is more fair to apply, say, the same limit of growth to everyone than to, say, apply the same limit on CO2 release per capita on every nationa, in which case the U.S. would be totally screwed! They also ignore the possibility of technologies incubated in the developed world then being passed on to the developing world, probably making a nice buck for some in the developed world in the process!)
They have occasionally also floated ideas that the science is not yet clear on CO2 and warming, although this position is becoming more and more untenable, given, e.g., that the National Academy of Sciences report that the Administration requested comes down in agreement with the IPCC report.
The idea is that forest, for example, can absorb CO2. (Trees do the reverse of us…They take in CO2 and output oxygen.) The questions, as I understand it, are how much they absorb and how long it remains sequestered. (Eventually the trees die and decay or are destroyed by fire and thus much of the CO2 can be liberated back into the environment.)
Thanks jshore - I thought that “carbon sinks” might refer to something other than forests.
Jackmannii:
China and the US have been on the brink of 2 or 3 trade wars in the early 90s, primarily on the issue of infringing copyrights in software and music, as I recall. US brinkmanship has paid off.
If the US did adopt the Kyoto treaty, what would be the actual effect upon US industry? Businesses are absolutely entitled to make a profit. But would it be an inconvenience, or would the implementation of the treaty cut deeply into American profits?
I’m curious as to whether this is simply a lot of bleating by US big business over nothing.
