“Tell us the tough choices”? What is Bush saying to California other than “You didn’t vote for me and never will, so go screw.”? Abdicating responsibility for a problem that ultimately affects us all isn’t “guts”, and it won’t gain him any more respect from future historians than from present-day citizens.
**
Yep, sure do. Bush doesn’t seem to have it in him, though.
Sam, once again, you’re getting only the point you want to get, then using it as an opening for more of your habitual (an unenlightening) liberal-bashing. Bush isn’t being criticized for renouncing the Kyoto treaty as such, but for refusing to recognize the reality of global warming at all. Even though Kyoto was flawed in countless ways I won’t defend, it did reflect international recognition of the problem and a real will to address it. Even a partial attempt to meet some of the goals would have been a real help.
But instead, Bush (insert Awl-Bidness reference here) declared that since the numbers can never be known to an absolute certainty, despite the evidence all around him, then doing anything at all is irresponsible. Only after intense criticism for that is he looking for some cover to neutralize such criticism, but it may be too late. If he applied anywhere near the same scientific skepticism to anti-missile defense, we wouldn’t have to be hearing about that boondoggle either.
Another reason Bush is being criticized is for the way he dumped the treaty - unilaterally, with no consultation with anyone or any apparent deliberation at all, even though he had inherited the US’s commitment to adhering to it despite the Senate vote - and do you really not think there was more to that politically than your apparently-self-filtered sources care to tell you?.
Glad to help clear that up for you. But you really have to make more of an intellectual effort yourself, friend.
ElvisL1ves, I agree that acting unilaterally is generally not a good idea. I would definitely like to see the US consult more and act more in accordance with Europe. At the same time this is difficult because European countries like to do the same. Often it seems the only point of their actions is to contradict whatever the US would like. The UK is often the lone exception. I realize often government act to please their peoples who may be isolationists or just contrarian. There’s a lot of both on both sides of the puddle.
I think you really need to support that kind of statement. Or shall we treat it like other unfalsifiable hypotheses, and throw it out?
You seem to be the victim of prejudice, misconception, and frustration. Since you point out you have lived and travelled in so many countries, I am surprised you do not have a more developed world-view.
Sam Stone That’s a great post - as a parody of ignorance.
You demonstrate a stunning comprehension of Politics, Diplomacy, Kyoto and the world outside your yard.
Tell me this, Sam: If Kyoto is dead and not costing the rest of the industrialised world rather a lot in order to reach their Protocol commitments, why do you think folks are a little annoyed with Mr Bush…oh, I see, it’s because he’s an American.
Also, could you also point me to one item in his agenda that doesn’t demonstrate he’s a puppet of vested corporate interests – just one policy not designed to increase consumption (profit) without hindrance ?
Finally, who funded his campaign, what’s his family and professional background, why would it be necessary for him to couch his policy justifications in flagrantly patriotic terms rather than on the merits of the arguments …I mean, gee, he’s a Graduate of Harvard an’ everything…
sailor: Well, my question would be, why do countries where offices are full of tobacco smoke and people are breathing crap all day, care so much about the US and Kyoto? Do you or do you not want clean air? No, they do not want clean air, they want to tell the US what to do.
Now sailor, while I too am glad we found so much common ground, I have to say that this is kind of absurd. I completely agree with you in wishing that European societies would be more considerate of the preferences of non-smokers, but surely you’re not suggesting that cigarette smoke is comparable as a global pollutant with the other kinds of emissions that Kyoto was designed to address?!? Greenhouse gas emissions, as far as we can tell from the current state of the evidence, are a pollution problem many orders of magnitude more serious than that. It is not really intrinsically hypocritical for someone to be strongly in favor of global pollution controls while still being willing to stink up the air with a cigarette from time to time.
And Sam Stone, I think you’re kind of off the mark in assuming that just because most other countries have not yet ratified the Kyoto Protocol, they have no intention of doing so in the future. The Japanese Diet adopted a strong resolution in late April approving early ratification, and several European leaders have recently expressed their determination to ratify it by 2002 whether or not the US participates; which, as I understand it, is in line with the schedule originally proposed for ratification and implementation. If they don’t follow through in a year or so, then you can point fingers, but at present I think you’re being very premature.
Abe, I already quoted from Newsweek in this same thread.
In Iran, Iraq, Libya, China, Korea, Yugoslavia some European countries, most notably France, have taken to going against US policies just to show they are not US lackeys. The UK OTOH usually does not do this and try to work closer with the US. When the bombing of Lybia the UK allowed their bases to be used but Spain and France denied passage over their airspace so the airplanes had to go all the way around the Iberian peninsula and enter the Med from Gibraltar.
I am not going to spend a lot of time substantiating what I believe to be obvious and common knowledge. If your perception is that all European countries work closely with the US to coordinate policies and please each other, then, as I have said above, we will just have to agree to disagree. But I think Newsweek is right on this one.
>> You seem to be the victim of prejudice, misconception, and frustration
Well, that’s your opinion but it is not the topic of this thread. I would rather we restrict ourselves to the topic of the thread. I find it ironic that you have to find something wrong with people who disagree with you. They just can’t disagree without something being wrong with them? It is very telling when someone sees those who disagree with him as being evil or prejudiced, or guided by interest, selfishness… Isn’t there a chance that other people see things differently just as honestly as you see them the way you do?
I have made it a principle to believe in people’s good faith, even if I disagree with them, until their actions clearly show otherwise. I do not think Bush is any more evil than Clinton. I think they have different ideas and I choose which ones to agree with but that does not make the person I disagree with evil.
I could much more rightly say to those who viscerally dislike Bush: “You seem to be the victim of prejudice, misconception, and frustration”.
sailor, the reason people are so vehemently disagreeing with you is that you’ve provided no substantial evidence for any of your claims. Personal anecdotes, the odd line in a magazine and “common knowledge” are not good enough to form a reasonable debate. Nobody has denied that the things you decry aren’t happening, but you’ve offered no proof that these things are as widespread and irrational as you claim they are.
I think you might want to reconsider this as an example. Or are you suggesting that opposition to US military policy inherently means Spain and France are antiAmerican? Puh-leeze.
I believe his “personal charm” far outweighs his “ability” to debate.
Far, very far…
London_Calling, that was a really great post . . . for me to POOP on!
The Euro-bureaucrats are annoyed with Bush on this Kyoto thing for the same reason that the Emperor was annoyed with the little boy that pointed out that the Emperor had no clothes . . .
Well, I’m quite certain that London Calling will be so devastated by this witty repartee that they’ll just slink away red faced. The command of language! The depth of the insult! I am in awe.
Then feel free to pick it apart piece by piece and tell me where I’m wrong (I mean, other than the pathetic attempts illustrated below.)
Oh, and I’ve been meaning to ask you: Just what is a ‘parody of ignorance’? If you mean I’m making fun of the ignorant, thank you. I’m doing my best.
Do you include reading comprehension among your many skills? I explained EXACTLY why Bush was taking heat for his stance on Kyoto in the very message you described as a ‘parody of ignorance’. Let me repeat, for the comprehension-challenged: Kyoto has become a symbol without meaning. Politicians love to claim to support it, because they know it will never become law. I offered as evidence the fact that Bush is being savaged by the Democrats in the Senate for abandoning Kyoto, even though they UNANIMOUSLY voted down the last floor bill on it. Bush basically peed on their free lunch.
So, if I’m completely wrong about this, and the Democrats would love to see Kyoto ratified in the U.S., please explain to me why they have unanimously voted against it.
You might want to read some political analysis of the state of the Kyoto treaty in the U.S. EVERYONE knows that it would be DOA if sent to the Senate to be ratified. Everyone, that is, except the enlightened left on this board.
I suppose it didn’t occur to you that corporations support Bush because of his beliefs, and not that Bush’s beliefs are the result of being purchased by corporations?
How come I never heard you claim that Clinton was in the pocket of the Trial Lawyers, or the Unions, or any of the other special interests that pretty much agreed with almost everything he did? The new ‘patients bill of rights’ that the Democrats are currently proposing would be a huge boon for the Trial Lawyers’ Association, which strongly supports it. How come you aren’t claiming that the Democrats have been bought off?
Some politicians are no doubt bought and paid for. Bush may in fact be one of them. But the mere fact that he advocates things that Corporate America likes is no proof of this. In case you haven’t noticed, broad political philosophies tend to create similar viewpoints on specific legislation.
Why do you find it necessary to attack the man personally? You don’t like his policies, fine. Discuss THEM. Why do you have to concort this convoluted theory about his family, his background, etc.? Why is this even remotely relevant? Even if he was a crony of special interests, why does that prevent you from arguing the merits of what he’s saying?
Oh, and ellipses are formed with three periods in a row. Does 8 in a row convey anything special?
Please, feel free to come back and attack the specifics of what I said, rather than attacking my character and the character of your President.
Sailor, so far this is an argument without ANY foundation. International relations depend on a lot more than Newsweek’s quote and you are espousing. Andros already pointed out the inapplicability of the Lybia example. I will add that European countries are under no obligation to accommodate the US on matters they consider doubtful. In addition, it is standard diplomatic practice to use any item to one’s advantage; there’s no such thing as open friendship between countries, even if they are allies. The bottom line in all things diplomatic is: “how can I benefit from this?”
If you find that European countries are responding negatively to certain US requests, perhaps you ought to consider if the US has done anything to annoy these countries to begin with. Why was the US kicked off the UN Human Rights Council? Did US allies who normally lobby for the US withdraw their support? Why did they withdraw support? Diplomacy is a war of interests.
It’s a very big picture, much bigger than Newsweek’s quote paints, although I have not read the article in question.
As a side issue, why is that ironic at all? Or is that an Alanis Morrisette use of the word? I posted what I posted for your general edification, not to put you down or find something wrong with you. Remember, you made the claim to be well informed and thoroughly travelled, so it seems strange that you make such bold inaccurate statements given your experience.
I don’t know how evil entered the discussion here, but your demonization of European countries (not to mention generalizations and misconception) do indeed indicate frustration and prejudice towards them. Instead of trans-Atlantic confrontation or anti-Americanism, think diplomatic currencies and exchanges.
As for Bush, I think he has earned a few gut-reactions already, ranging from denying Global Warming to his comments on intending to overturn Roe vs Wade, to his support of Big Oil and similar corporate interests. People make fun of him because they perceive him to be quite dumb, and so far he has been unable to shake off this perception.
In a world of frequent analogies, I have rarely seen such an extreme one! Zarathustra, I sincerely hope you posted this comment in jest, because if you didn’t we have a lot of ground to cover…
Sam Stone, I realize you are discussing US affairs here and not international ones, however it seems to me Bush is taking heat for dismissing an agreement of vital importance without offering any substitute or alternative. He is taking heat for this on international and domestic levels, although perhaps the domestic accusations are less supported than the international ones if indeed no one in the US intended to ratify the treaty. I am not qualified to discuss the strategies of US internal politics, however there is a lot of useful material for anyone who thinks that Kyoto is some sort of symbol without meaning (or a devious international conspiracy to weaken the US) at:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=66340
In the above extremely illuminating thread Kimstu, Collounsbury, and others address some concerns about the Protocol and related political and scientific issues. Let me quote from that thread:
Kimstu had this to say, also in that thread:
I want to thank others, notably Abe, Kimstu and wring for their excellent contributions. Also, Zarathustra – do your folks know you write naughty words on message boards ?
Okayee,
Sam Stone - What I don’t understand about your position is that it assumes Kyoto is finished when, in fact, the overwhelming majority of Industrialised nations are currently on targets to meet their original Protocol targets by 2002. Kyoto, in it’s original form, is being adhered to and even Japan, in the midst of a 10 year downturn, looks like it could achieve it’s goals and ratify the Treaty in 2002.
Thus, according to the UN, as of 9-May-2001, 34 countries have ratified or acceded to the Kyoto Protocol while the big players (most western European countries together with, hopefully, Japan)** remain** on course to ratify in 2002. Yep, it’s that “unworkable”.
So, when you write this:
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
You’ll understand it suggests a level of comprehension on the subject that smacks of someone who has either swallowed Mr Bush’s patriotic / nationalistic nonsense hook, line and sinker or is extremely ill-informed. The two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
Either way, I’d suggest following the link identified above by Abe and also searching the SDMB for the posts of Kimstu, Collounsbury and j.shore in conjunction with ‘Kyoto’– all eminently informed posters on the subject.
In addition, Kyoto is not, let me repeat that: not a “mutant political football”. In most countries it’s not even a party political issue. It’s social. That it remains ‘political’ in the US is a testament to the spinning abilities of the corporation-backed politicians.
Further, I don’t think any serious observer believes the US political agenda is - uniquely in modern western societies – not disproportionately influenced by vested interests through the lobby system and election funding (without getting side tracked, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion when one looks at the hours US employees work, the limited vacation time, employment rights, unemployment rights… – all characterised as necessary to maintain productivity and efficiency. Strangely, that’s exactly the by product of adhering to Kyoto. See any contradiction ?).
This, then, is the root of my anger at Bush: He continues to characterise Kyoto as somehow un-American and unworkable while also feeding the American people with misinformation. Why would he do that ? – because there is an entirely different (corporate) agenda hidden from view.
In short, you and the American people are being lied to by vested corporate interests through the good offices of the former oil man turned politician who was elected, wants to get re-elected and needs their funding, Mr Bush.
Yeah, I know: ‘Conspiracy Theory’. Just like Kyoto is “unworkable”
One final point on Kyoto:
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
I don’t think there’s too much point in getting into numbers here. However, the headline statistics agree that both countries are big polluters but also come about mid-table when emissions are measured per head of population. The US is way out in front on any measurement – approximate figures being something like 25% (and rising) of all greenhouse gas emissions with 5% of the world’s population.
The real issue here – the one that addresses how to begin to implement a new global realism and not the “Hey, what bout dem guys !” red herrings of Mr Bush - is understanding that the initial drive has to come from first world industrialised countries for a number of reasons.
For example (one example): It is vital to understand that Kyoto is not the answer – it is the beginning of a new and long term project intended to change the way countries collectively address world issues. Kyoto is a step, no more, no less and through Kyoto – maybe five or ten years down the road – other less developed nations can and will be brought into line.
However, we need, as first world countries, to clean our own backyard, to develop the tech, to fully develop the new economic models before the process of pressure can start to be applied to other countries (the sub text there is: possible trade sanctions, withholding tech, withholding investment, restrictions on companies employing workers in the Third World, etc., etc.)
That ‘pressure’, in modern democratic societies, needs to be applied (justified) from a morally strong position and that’s what, in no small measure, Kyoto is about: Putting our house in order before we start head locking others and bangin’ 'em against the wall.
Okay, enough of me already.
And, Ike, I’m truly sorry for hijacking your “Charmed, I’m sure” debate.
Which countries have ratified it? My guess is the poor ones, that are essentially getting a free ride.
But here’s why politicians can support it while knowing it will cost them nothing: Kyoto doesn’t go into effect unless the numbner of countries ratifying it adds up to 55% of current CO2 pollutants. The U.S. was never going to ratify it, as the last Senate vote shows, so there goes 25% of the world’s CO2 emissions right there. Canada probably won’t sign on, and a few other major emitting countries probably won’t either. Great Britain perhaps. So it’s HIGHLY unlikely that they were ever going to get to the magic 55% number anyway, and everyone knows this.
Kyoto is one of those ‘mom and pop’ things that sounds great when you first hear it, but the devil is in the details. For example, China is rapidly closing in on the U.S. in overall CO2 emissions (I think it alone accounts for close to 20% now), yet it is exempt. So is India. People don’t really know enough about the deal to understand that.
Also, a recent poll in the U.S. asked households if they supported Kyoto. A majority said yes. HOWEVER, when asked how much they’d be personally willing to pay for it, the number came to about $25 per household. When asked if they would support Kyoto if it wound up costing $50/mo (and that number is probably closer to the real amount), support for it collapsed big time.
I don’t know what the numbers are like in poorer countries, but I’ll bet the threshold is even lower since, well, they are poorer. So when it comes to actually deal and make that treaty happen, all those politicians would have faced some serious political pressure. But not if it never happens in the first place. In that case, you can support it and be ‘green’ and never have to worry about the unpleasantness to follow.
BTW, here’s something else I said in my ‘parody of ignorance’ message. Permit me to quote myself:
Now let me quote from today’s issue of TIME:
Sam says without cite:
Yet today in the N.Y. Times:
There seems to be some discrepancy here. If, as George says, our CO2 emissions need to rise in order to keep the economy from stagnating, how will the commies ever catch up to us when their emissions are falling and their economy is ALREADY growing ?
So far the president seems to be using the same thoughtful judgment, and carefully honed diplomatic skills on the europeans as he employed in his handling of the Vieques affair.
Sam Stone:* But here’s why politicians can support it while knowing it will cost them nothing: Kyoto doesn’t go into effect unless the numbner of countries ratifying it adds up to 55% of current CO2 pollutants.*
(jshore and RL-buddy Kimstu doing a joint post here…)
The phrase “will cost them nothing” is quite inaccurate in this context, though, since the point of other countries’ continuing commitment to the Kyoto goals is that it is costing them something, i.e., they’re bearing the costs of the progress they’re making towards the Kyoto targets. (Of course, this disadvantage is offset by the fact that, as many economists have pointed out, the true costs of emissions reduction are actually likely to be pretty small or even negative in the medium to long term.) Saying that European countries are getting political capital out of Kyoto while taking no economic risks from it is simply not true.
Also, a recent poll in the U.S. asked households if they supported Kyoto. A majority said yes. HOWEVER, when asked how much they’d be personally willing to pay for it, the number came to about $25 per household. When asked if they would support Kyoto if it wound up costing $50/mo (and that number is probably closer to the real amount), support for it collapsed big time.
Well, if you don’t give people an informed choice, you can’t expect them to have an informed opinion. It is simply silly to ask people what the maximum price is that they’re willing to pay for emissions reduction if you don’t tell them what the probable costs will be of not reducing emissions. How much you would really be willing to pay to reduce the damage caused by Problem X always depends on how much of a hazard Problem X really is and how much it would cost you if unchecked. A poll that doesn’t include these considerations in its questions is naturally going to get a different response from one that does. (By the way, where’s your cite for the claim that the “real amount” of economic costs of emissions reductions is on the order of $50 per household per month?)
Permit me to quote myself: … Now let me quote from today’s issue of TIME: …
Yes, we are impressed with how well you have learned to predict the views of the Time Warner media conglomerate on the course of political events. 