Lifestyle > Train of Thought
US rules out joining Kyoto treaty
JoMoDo:
The US has some of the highest levels of CO2 output as well as other toxins than any other nation in the world...
Saying that signing an agreement to limit output pollution and have corporations be enviornmentally concious in conjunction w/ seaking a profit is acinine... I'll touch more on this tomorrow before I have to cut out from work...
greedy selfish cold-hearted PIGs are against the Kyoto, plain and simple (leave all the rightwing, big business rhetoric at home, which is all that's been posted)
tommyilromano:
It amazes me that you think we(the U.S.) would. The Kyoto treaty brings nothing but bad things to America. If it were to be legally binding on every country in the world, and not just the ones with an arbitrarily high level of development at the time the treaty was developed, then come back to us. Otherwise, we prefer not to become poor by legislative fiat..
Ant:
--- Quote from: Woodrow on December 08, 2004, 01:24:53 PM ---
--- Quote from: Ant on December 08, 2004, 08:06:38 AM ---"When President George W. Bush pulled out of the Kyoto process he said signing the protocol could harm the U.S. economy, and Watson said that argument has been even more persuasive since."
Bush is concerned with proposals that may hurt the American Economy?
--- End quote ---
You get thoroughly schooled, and the only thing you can do is come back on the economy?! I thought this topic was about the Kyoto Treaty?!
Get the fuck outta here.
--- End quote ---
Why are all your posts filled with so much hate and anger? I did not get "thoroughly schooled" if you read over my comments in this post, you will realize something interesting: I have no commentary on Kyoto other than my small post you cited. You can't "thoroughly school" me when I haven't even written anything. The article I posted, was fairly balanced, and pointed out how both sides feel.
Woodrow:
--- Quote from: Ant on December 08, 2004, 07:50:57 PM ---Why are all your posts filled with so much hate and anger? I did not get "thoroughly schooled" if you read over my comments in this post, you will realize something interesting: I have no commentary on Kyoto other than my small post you cited. You can't "thoroughly school" me when I haven't even written anything. The article I posted, was fairly balanced, and pointed out how both sides feel.
--- End quote ---
My posts are filled with hate and anger because I hate morons. It pains me to see people that are so fucking stupid, continue to try and justify the utterly ignorant things they say.
Back to the Kyoto Treaty. It's trash. I'm glad the President of the United States isn't gonna sign it.
Ant:
You wanted a response:
--- Quote from: Woodrow on December 08, 2004, 02:05:14 AM ---I realize that most liberals strongly support the Kyoto treaty but often they seem not to look past the fact that it's pro-environment international agreement. Thats all. Good policy decisions, environmental or not, need to be based on a detailed estimation of the effects; not simply warm feelings about the intended goal. It's not uncommon for economic and societal regulation to have paradoxical effects and actually encourage the opposite of their intended consequence and I know that Kyoto is one of those cases.
--- End quote ---
No I think the majority of the world signed the Kyoto treaty realizing that it is pro-environment. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol are concerned with global warming. You are applying stardard conservative thinking, which I tend to agree with, across the board when you say "its not uncommon for regulations to have paradoxical effects." I dislike regulations, but in some cases they are necessary. When individual self-interests will not lead to the optimal solution for all parties, regulation becomes necessary.
--- Quote from: Woodrow on December 08, 2004, 02:05:14 AM ---In particular, the danger with Kyoto is that it places legal caps on emissions from developed countries while enforcing no such requirements on third world countries. There are non-binding targets, but come on now... FEW Third world countries are going to sacrifice economic development for a non-binding CO2 emissions target. I can't really say I blame em. If I was living in poor squalid conditions I wouldn't be happy with my government sacrificing my chance to earn a better wage because the industrialized countries dumped too much CO2 into the air when they were trying to modernize.
--- End quote ---
John Kerry argued that we need to hold foreign countries to the same standards we hold ourselves to environmentally so that we can level the playing field. I actually disagree with this because currently, 3rd world countries do relatively little to hurt the economy in comparison to large industrialized nations like the U.S. Additionally, 3rd world populations naturally behave in ways that are less environmentally damaging than western countries behave. In the U.S. we buy, buy, buy, buy, and then throw away. This wasted use of energy and resources has a massive impact on our environment. In comparison, I have friends from both nigeria and italy, who are relentless in their desire to waste as little as possible. The average american buys something like 10-15 shirts per year, the average african buys 1 maybe. My nigerian friends eat every part of the animal when they cook, the heart, lungs, liver, and even the cow's tail. In the west, we typically eat only the best parts, and the rest gets thrown away during the production process. I hold westerns to higher standards, because consumerism is the single biggest threat to the environment and become 3rd World countries are relatively minor offenders.
--- Quote from: Woodrow on December 08, 2004, 02:05:14 AM ---The economic consequences seem fairly obvious to the educated. A plant built in a first world country, party to the Kyoto treaty, is likely to require a more expensive emission control system or the purchase of emissions credits in addition to the already high price of labor. Therefore Kyoto is likely to simply encourage the building of CO2 emitting plants in third world countries on whom the treaty is not binding. Even if some provision of the treaty or national law prevents the company in question from building such a plant themselves it will only be a short time before investors in China/India or elsewhere realize they can produce products much cheaper and construct a factory to supply them.
--- End quote ---
The goal of Kyoto is to reduce CO2 emissions by decreasing activities that create CO2 emissions. The objectives of Kyoto would not be achieved through the implementation of emission control systems, but rather through investment in sustainable sources of energy. Whenever we use energy there are environmental consquences, especially with the use of coal for energy. Investment in sustainable energy represent one time costs that will eventually offer competitive advantages to U.S. businesses. By developing renewable energies, like solar, wind, biomass, and so on we reduce the cost of energy usage, and also reduce costs for American manufacturers. Most of the burden here is placed on the energy industry and the U.S. government who would have had to fund the development of sustainable energies. In some ways we already do this. In NY businesses can recieve state grants for implementing solar systems. We also recieve state money for upgrading our lighting systems and for other projects that reduce energy usage. Many of the programs required to make Kyoto sucessful would simply be extensions of similiar state funded programs. These programs actually make manufacturers more efficient by helping them reduce their energy costs. Anyways, the point is, that Kyoto would not push jobs overseas to less environmentally friendly countries. In fact, improving the energy efficiency of the American economy would make us more competitive by lowering costs for american businesses in the long run.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version