(Original post by Golden Maverick)
It does assume continued economic growth, however I can clearly imagine a situation where the economic growth does not continue and this is used as the excuse for not meeting targets.
Targets are tied to economic growth. In the case of Japan and Canada the state of the economy has meant that the chances of meeting the Kyoto protocol targets are all but gone and they are actually increasing their emissions. The US plan is not as ambitious, but the targets remain clear and obtainable.
You may call the US plan more feasible, I would call it less effective.
Canada increased emissions by 20% in 2003, unrealistic targets are no better than no targets at all. The ratified protocol, if implemented is evidently more effective on paper, but at what cost? The US economy has enough on its plate in regards to China and India without having to stuggle with fixed, static targets that have little consideration for economic climate changes and developing countries. That doesnt strike me as being a particuarly effective global policy.
This report of a report of a plan is more concerning than no plan in my view, as when there was no plan I could hope they would develop a plan that would reduce emissions.
The US Congress is still considering proposing something similar to Kyoto that would take developing nations into consideration.
Another point, you mentioned before the US under Clinton condemned the Kyoto protocol for not including devolping nations. How is the US going to justify them reducing their emissions, when they see a country with 4.5% of the world population produces 36% of the emissions and is doing nothing to reduce the absolute amounts it produces?
Hang on, the US was perfectly willing to sign up to the Kyoto protocol and did. It then negotiated, with every other signatory, for targets to be imposed on developing countries as part of GLOBAL effort. This was rejected particuarly by the EU. Other countries also rejected Kyoto Mark I. If there had been an agreement that countries like China, India and Brazil had targets imposed then the Clinton would have been most likely willing to submit it to Congress for ratification.
Vienna is it actually your view that the US is right in it's action or are you arguing the other side for fun? You always seem to take the opposite stance of the majority
Im trying to understand the US position and their motivations. I also understand the position of the EU. I dont have a cast iron position that I am unwilling to move from, but will follow the discussion as it goes. The stance of the majority prior to my opposition was that the Americans were cold hearted, gas guzzling pigs that purposely rejected international cooperation on a perfectly acceptable and implementable environmental policy. Bush, the oil man, as President of American Greed, apparently didnt even have a plan.