Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Many of the liberal politicians are what we call "Limousine Liberals." They are all for the common man and the environment, but most are complete hypocrites and don't practice what they preach. Often, they have the typical private jet, speed boats and SUVs. I can't even imagine how many thousands of gallons of fuel John Kerry's Gulfstream V private jet consumes each year.
    I love the liberal members of Hollywood who preach about saving the environment, using hybrid cars, etc. Then, for example, Leonardo DiCaprio hops on a private jet so he can attend both the New York and LA premieres of Fahrenheit 9/11. I think someone even asked him about it, and the irony was totally lost on him.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    That would be assuming the Kyoto protocol is necessarily the best way of, or even beneficial to, adressing the environmental issue. To suggest a lack of American participation is indicative of a disregard for environmental policies is subjective at best.
    I agree. However, lack of american participation does show its disregard for international cooperation on this issue - I think that is a mistake.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    If American cooperation was increased, maybe Kyoto would become a viable method for reducing climate damage, even if it isn't one now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    I agree. However, lack of american participation does show its disregard for international cooperation on this issue - I think that is a mistake.
    Hmm, well proposing that you enter into an agreement telling your nation that you are going to spend their money on something you as a government dont believe is the right course of action, binding the people and national industry to the rules of said agreement on the grounds of demonstrating international cooperation, would you imagine that population would be justified in their expected disapproval?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    That would be assuming the Kyoto protocol is necessarily the best way of, or even beneficial to, adressing the environmental issue. To suggest a lack of American participation is indicative of a disregard for environmental policies is subjective at best.
    I'm not aware of every single environmental policy. Still, the kyoto agreement is looking to cut emmissions of trhe gases that are causing environmental problems for today's generation and will cause problems for tomorrows generation. America as the biggest polluter on the planet would ensure that Kyoto could be a success in reducing emissions. However, its failure to sign up shows its disregard for environmental issues and seem to continually focus on the short term ands also its unwilling to cooperate with the international community.

    As a side point, it seems rather ironic that America on issues of foreign policy view things as a global threat that should be tackled together. But on the environment they seem to have shrunk back into the shell of a nation state.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    If American cooperation was increased, maybe Kyoto would become a viable method for reducing climate damage, even if it isn't one now.
    It would become more successful but not necessarily the best way that America wishes to spend its money. Unfortunately, America has to be involved in such projects for them to have some real international significance. What I"ve seen certainly in France, is that smaller nations draw up ambitious agreements or at least over emphasise the possibility of execution and success, knowing the US will bring objections, so that they can return to their people having offered a popular but unfeasible idea while failure can be exported to Washington. In the case of Kyoto, the Europeans quickly rethought their commitment when US backing, thanks to Russia, was no longer required.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    However, its failure to sign up shows its disregard for environmental issues and seem to continually focus on the short term ands also its unwilling to cooperate with the international community.
    Again, assuming that the Kyoto protocol was the best way to address those environmental issues. Cooperation with the international community is only possible if there is something on which to cooperate.

    As a side point, it seems rather ironic that America on issues of foreign policy view things as a global threat that should be tackled together. But on the environment they seem to have shrunk back into the shell of a nation state.
    Americas foreign policy is traditionally isolationist. That is certainly true of conservative governments. The current influence of neo-conservatism adds a new, more forward looking dimension to this, which results in a more pro-active, "US lead, her allies follow" approach.
    If the international community draws up an agreement that everyone agrees is a feasible reality and that doesnt demand unrealistic demands of the US economy based on a different assessment of the environmental issue, then Im sure the Americans have every intention of cooperation.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Again, assuming that the Kyoto protocol was the best way to address those environmental issues. Cooperation with the international community is only possible if there is something on which to cooperate.
    Which are in your opinion the best ways?
    Americas foreign policy is traditionally isolationist. That is certainly true of conservative governments. The current influence of neo-conservatism adds a new, more forward looking dimension to this, which results in a more pro-active, "US lead, her allies follow" approach.
    If the international community draws up an agreement that everyone agrees is a feasible reality and that doesnt demand unrealistic demands of the US economy based on a different assessment of the environmental issue, then Im sure the Americans have every intention of cooperation.
    If we consider the fact at although I am willing to accept their may be a short term economic growth damage by the implimentation of kyoto and the consequent reduction in emissions, it is nothing to the problems that will face us. For instance, if, as is your view that economic growth is a more worthwhile goal than environmental concerns (in the short term) then what you will have iscontinued pollution by America...which will get to a point when America will be unable to ignore the environmental problems it creates. When we reach that point America will have to impose draconain limits on industry that will have an even worse affect on their economic than the relatively small affect it will have now.

    Looking
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    Which are in your opinion the best ways?
    Ones that are immediately feasible and allow international cooperation.

    If we consider the fact at although I am willing to accept their may be a short term economic growth damage by the implimentation of kyoto and the consequent reduction in emissions, it is nothing to the problems that will face us.
    But that is an argument for whether we sign Kyoto or not. Not whether we assess or cooperate on other initiatives than Kyoto. In that respect, the US was not welcomed.

    For instance, if, as is your view that economic growth is a more worthwhile goal than environmental concerns (in the short term) then what you will have iscontinued pollution by America...which will get to a point when America will be unable to ignore the environmental problems it creates. When we reach that point America will have to impose draconain limits on industry that will have an even worse affect on their economic than the relatively small affect it will have now.
    Economic growth is not always more worthwhile but these factors are interlinked. Growth may allow other solutions to arise that may be, in the long term, better than the damage huge restrictions on industry would cause.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by vienna95)
    That would be assuming the Kyoto protocol is necessarily the best way of, or even beneficial to, adressing the environmental issue. To suggest a lack of American participation is indicative of a disregard for environmental policies is subjective at best.
    see there we are.
    You and people of your way of thinking (suc as the US admin) seem to think that by waiting for a better more strict protocol, they will be in a better position to reduce pollution and stop global warming.
    Where infact they are just stalling and reaping the economic benefits of flagrant pollution in the meantime.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Ones that are immediately feasible and allow international cooperation.


    But that is an argument for whether we sign Kyoto or not. Not whether we assess or cooperate on other initiatives than Kyoto. In that respect, the US was not welcomed.


    Economic growth is not always more worthwhile but these factors are interlinked. Growth may allow other solutions to arise that may be, in the long term, better than the damage huge restrictions on industry would cause.
    Did you ever play Sid Meie's Civilisation? OR any of the civilisation games?
    If so you would have experienced the dsperate race that is this decision.
    Do you expand your cities, and build polluting facilities knowing that your scientic (and economic) devlopment will mean you can find clean sources quicker, or do you opt for slower development but without polluting/trashing the place.
    In Civ it was best to go for the first option, but life is not quite the same methinks
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    see there we are.
    You and people of your way of thinking (suc as the US admin) seem to think that by waiting for a better more strict protocol, they will be in a better position to reduce pollution and stop global warming.
    Where infact they are just stalling and reaping the economic benefits of flagrant pollution in the meantime.
    Are we waiting for a better protocol or stalling for profit?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    Did you ever play Sid Meie's Civilisation? OR any of the civilisation games?
    If so you would have experienced the dsperate race that is this decision.
    Do you expand your cities, and build polluting facilities knowing that your scientic (and economic) devlopment will mean you can find clean sources quicker, or do you opt for slower development but without polluting/trashing the place.
    In Civ it was best to go for the first option, but life is not quite the same methinks
    Governments will have different opinions depending on the necessary economic commitment. I dont think it suggests any level of international commitment as this would be among the least important factors to consider in such a decision. If in playing such game, did you take a decision contrary to public opinion, contrary to your opinion, because of the interests of other nations?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Governments will have different opinions depending on the necessary economic commitment. I dont think it suggests any level of international commitment as this would be among the least important factors to consider in such a decision. If in playing such game, did you take a decision contrary to public opinion, contrary to your opinion, because of the interests of other nations?
    In civ2 i remeber your people would get unhappy if pollution got toa certain level. Plus it would damage your land. other nations would get narked and demand eco-treaties.

    And in my opinion america is stalling for profit anbd to maintain the lifestyle for as long as possible
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Economic growth is not always more worthwhile but these factors are interlinked. Growth may allow other solutions to arise that may be, in the long term, better than the damage huge restrictions on industry would cause.
    Can you note the keyword may. A commitment to reducing emmissions will be good for the environment.

    If you wish to hang on for this possible, maybe, i-hope-it-might-come solution to come along then that is your opinion and it is frankly undebatable if you wish to 'wait and see'. Following that line will run the risk as I have shown above of Draconian limits having to be placed on industry that will severly damage the american economy and consequently the world's.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    And in my opinion america is stalling for profit anbd to maintain the lifestyle for as long as possible
    is it possible that the US government "seem to think that by waiting for a better more strict protocol, they will be in a better position to reduce pollution and stop global warming."?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    is it possible that the US government "seem to think that by waiting for a better more strict protocol, they will be in a better position to reduce pollution and stop global warming."?
    Yes. It's possible. I'm sure that's # 1 on the US' list of things to do; stop global warming. They're just waiting for the right time to leap into action.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    Can you note the keyword may. A commitment to reducing emmissions will be good for the environment.

    If you wish to hang on for this possible, maybe, i-hope-it-might-come solution to come along then that is your opinion and it is frankly undebatable if you wish to 'wait and see'. Following that line will run the risk as I have shown above of Draconian limits having to be placed on industry that will severly damage the american economy and consequently the world's.
    The choice is to cooperate as an international community into finding a feasible agreement that can be implemented based on universal acceptance of the environmental situation, or for everyone to sign up to an unfeasible and possibly harmful protocol that fails to consider developing nations such as China, India and Brazil and that is based on a disagreement of the reality of the environmental situation. Having promoted international cooperation are you now suggesting the US sign up uncompromisingly to any environmentalists dream just because its better than disappointing Europe and their version of the situation? The US signed up to the treaty, they pursued diplomatic negotiation but it was not eventually ratified by US congress. That is diplomatic cooperation.

    Its also interesting to note that once the US pulled out, the protocol looked dead with the US to blame. However, with Russia ratifying the protocol, it came into effect much to the horror of nations like Britain and France. The national emission reduction targets were then dropped by 2/3rds. Are you sincerely telling me that these nations criticising the US found this any more feasible and acceptable than the US? The Senate has now requested Bush to sign this revised version or approach the international community with an alternative proposal. Is this the sign of a nation that does not want to cooperate? Doesnt want to discuss environmental policy seriously? There are many arguments to raise against US environmental policy, Kyoto is not one of them.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Howard)
    Yes. It's possible. I'm sure that's # 1 on the US' list of things to do; stop global warming. They're just waiting for the right time to leap into action.
    Sarcasm noted and agreed with.
    I think when push comes to shove you have to look at it like this.
    Will it be better to commit to reducing emissions NOW and then on the weight of better scientific knowledge/technologies revise this commitment (either relaxing or making it even more strict) a few decades down the line, or will it be better to do sod all and wait for a few decades.

    I think the stance is pretty indefensible any way you look at it other than 'we believe we can best protect our people from the effects by forging ahead with our pollution to make a better economy. To hell with everyone else'
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by vienna95)
    The choice is to cooperate as an international community into finding a feasible agreement that can be implemented based on universal acceptance of the environmental situation, or for everyone to sign up to an unfeasible and possibly harmful protocol that fails to consider developing nations such as China, India and Brazil and that is based on a disagreement of the reality of the environmental situation. Having promoted international cooperation are you now suggesting the US sign up uncompromisingly to any environmentalists dream just because its better than disappointing Europe and their version of the situation? The US signed up to the treaty, they pursued diplomatic negotiation but it was not eventually ratified by US congress. That is diplomatic cooperation.

    Its also interesting to note that once the US pulled out, the protocol looked dead with the US to blame. However, with Russia ratifying the protocol, it came into effect much to the horror of nations like Britain and France. The national emission reduction targets were then dropped by 2/3rds. Are you sincerely telling me that these nations criticising the US found this any more feasible and acceptable than the US? The Senate has now requested Bush to sign this revised version or approach the international community with an alternative proposal. Is this the sign of a nation that does not want to cooperate? Doesnt want to discuss environmental policy seriously? There are many arguments to raise against US environmental policy, Kyoto is not one of them.
    Ah the american way
    Agree to a bill/protocol, then negotiate it's watering down to point of ineffectiveness.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you chained to your phone?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.