It's June 15, 2024, 03:45:22 PM
Quote from: Don Rizzle on May 10, 2006, 03:16:12 AMiraq would just get annexed by iranThat would be a great solution. If Iran and the majority of Iraqi's are pleased with it, then why shouldn't they do it?
iraq would just get annexed by iran
"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?
your looking at it from a very one sided point of view. the idea is to cut emmission whcih won't necessarily mean factories will move elsewhere, but to add in the cost of the damage to the enviroment into the price which the consumer pays where market forces have failed to do this. its also to encourage developing nations to do more, we'd be hyporcrits if we asking them to cut emissions but not doing anything ourselves, plus its the developed nations who produce by far the most emmissions so we should really be working on reducing the problems not brushing them aside like the worlds worst poluter does. if america can't afford to cut emmissions then their markets are failing and should have governemnt subsidies to encourage them too or they should leave that industry its as simple as that.
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? 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.