Turn on thread page Beta

Dissapointed by the Stop the War Coalition watch

    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by J.S.)
    entirely, particularly as the econ. was facing a recession
    That I would accept - apart from the fact that the US governments own predictions showed that signing up to the Kyoto agreement would considerably boost their economy (through the creation of new products/markets both internally and worldwide).

    It would have cost a few votes in the heavily industrial constituencies though - especially if the opposition blamed Kyoto and not the decline in global competetiveness for the potential/future joblosses.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    That I would accept - apart from the fact that the US governments own predictions showed that signing up to the Kyoto agreement would considerably boost their economy (through the creation of new products/markets both internally and worldwide).

    It would have cost a few votes in the heavily industrial constituencies though - especially if the opposition blamed Kyoto and not the decline in global competetiveness for the potential/future joblosses.
    I'd have to look at the projections to comment. Also, in politics, of course it depends on when those gains would be realised. For instance, if the gains would be more long term, or realised immediately. Immediate gain is probably preferred, as it's easier for the electorate to link it to the policy decisions of whomever is seeking votes. However, as I've said, I've not come across the reports, by whom were they done? Do you have a link?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Only a conservative could turn a conversation about the Environment into an economic debate.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by J.S.)
    I'd have to look at the projections to comment. Also, in politics, of course it depends on when those gains would be realised. For instance, if the gains would be more long term, or realised immediately. Immediate gain is probably preferred, as it's easier for the electorate to link it to the policy decisions of whomever is seeking votes. However, as I've said, I've not come across the reports, by whom were they done? Do you have a link?
    I wish I had a link...I did back when all the hoohar was going on. There is probably a link from the greenpeace/friends of the earth website to the government site but it's possibly been replaced.

    As I remember the report was published about 2 months after the US pulled out and the conclusions it came to where that the potential losses from decreased competetiveness (is that the word?) in large scale industry where by far outweighed by the potential for the US to become a world leader in energy saving products (industrial and otherwise) and techniques and the development of a substantial renewable energy market.

    I'll have a hunt for a link but it was yrs ago now.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J.S.)
    I'd have to look at the projections to comment. Also, in politics, of course it depends on when those gains would be realised. For instance, if the gains would be more long term, or realised immediately. Immediate gain is probably preferred, as it's easier for the electorate to link it to the policy decisions of whomever is seeking votes. However, as I've said, I've not come across the reports, by whom were they done? Do you have a link?
    with bush you have a president with key marginal states depending on heavy industry (oil, steel etc.) for employment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Only a conservative could turn a conversation about the Environment into an economic debate.
    Anybody would, unless you consider the economy to be unimportant; certain ideologies may prioritise economic development to a greater extent over the environment. However one cannot simply ignore the economic impact when discussing environment:P
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hattori)
    “It’s all about oil”- can anyone actually justify this??
    Of course it isn't, but equally untrue is the almost universal deceit in the western media that ignores the fact that control of resources in the region has long been a crucial american foreign policy aim - and pretty much all of the "issues" in the region (at least that the americans are concerned with) stem from that amoral objective.

    And, yes, I believe that the StW leadership are really not too praiseworthy... but probably for different reasons than you.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    I lied (or rather my memory did). The report wasn't published by the US government but by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)...which was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)...which might explain why the US doesn't like it.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/SYRspm.pdf
    Scroll down past all the science to Question 7

    It basically says that half the cost would be paid for simply by the savings in energy. And the other half mitigated by new business/industries etc etc. And that the total cost of reducing emissions is likely to be less than the potential cost of not acting and risking living with the consequences of climate change (something likely to have a very negative effect on the economy).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Of course it isn't, but equally untrue is the almost universal deceit in the western media that ignores the fact that control of resources in the region has long been a crucial american foreign policy aim - and pretty much all of the "issues" in the region (at least that the americans are concerned with) stem from that amoral objective.
    The US don't need that much power in the way of force. They already have plenty of purchasing power, expensive oil hurts the west and that hurts OPEC too. And how is that an amoral objective??

    I think setting up a cartel, fixing the price of oil, then increasing the prices in reaction to political aims, then wasting the profit on lavish goods whilst the country goes to pot, is amoral. Extravagant arabs leaders who don't give a monkeys about there country leads to terrorism. Because you have kids who are living a tough life being told America did it. When all America did was buy the oil and sell casinos to the saudis. Wait until they're rolling out fuel cells out of Detroit and the only oil we buy is for plastics and roads, you'll soon see the effect of what im talking about in the middle east.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I love this debate!!
    VV Check out my site to see why! VV
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.