Is hatred of the USA just jealousy? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#601
Report 14 years ago
#601
(Original post by foolfarian)
Ah the american way
Agree to a bill/protocol, then negotiate it's watering down to point of ineffectiveness.
Erm, they didnt. They merely said that they were not happy enough to ratify it. They let everyone else make their own decision. Which was to actually stop talking and reevaluate the fact that it wasnt feasible. Its hardly international cooperation to suggest a protocol that you have no intention of following just to force diplomatic hostility with the Americans for cheap votes back home. The Americans called a spade a spade.
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#602
Report 14 years ago
#602
(Original post by vienna95)
Erm, they didnt. They merely said that they were not happy enough to ratify it. They let everyone else make their own decision. Which was to actually stop talking and reevaluate the fact that it wasnt feasible. Its hardly international cooperation to suggest a protocol that you have no intention of following just to force diplomatic hostility with the Americans for cheap votes back home. The Americans called a spade a spade.
I thought americans called spades shovels. :aetsch:
Kondar
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#603
Report 14 years ago
#603
(Original post by foolfarian)
I thought americans called spades shovels. :aetsch:
HAHA we do!! Im teaching English to kindergartners in China and I have all these flash cards that I use. There is one of a 'spade'- but I always just say shovel as thats what I've always called it. I had the sneaking suspiscion that it was a British thing....
0
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#604
Report 14 years ago
#604
(Original post by Kondar)
HAHA we do!! Im teaching English to kindergartners in China and I have all these flash cards that I use. There is one of a 'spade'- but I always just say shovel as thats what I've always called it. I had the sneaking suspiscion that it was a British thing....
Although, on the plus side, shovel avoids the homonym that implies the desexing of a domestic animal... :p:
0
pedy1986
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#605
Report 14 years ago
#605
(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 an alternative proposal. Is this the sign of a nation that does noSenate has now requested Bush to sign this revised version or approach the international community with t 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.
Could you outline exactly how this is not feasible, since you keeping using the word but not telling me exactly what you mean by it. Indeed, any relevant figures would be much appericiated on the damage it would cause.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#606
Report 14 years ago
#606
(Original post by corey)
Could you outline exactly how this is not feasible, since you keeping using the word but not telling me exactly what you mean by it.
The feasibility of meeting proposed targets on reducing emissions within a certain time frame while sustaining acceptable/responsible economic growth.
0
Golden Maverick
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#607
Report 14 years ago
#607
(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."?
That is possible but how likely?
It has not started to reduce emissions, there have been no statements by the US government saying "we will not join Kyoto because we are waiting for a better plan", and Bush continues to promote industry, without limiting their emissions. Furthermore Bush is an oil man, he has too much vested interest and his campaign is too dependent on oil and industry for him to limit emissions.
If this was the case, surely the US would be in the best position to implement the idea, or at least to get it started. Again there has not been any evidence to suggest they are about to do this.

I hope I'm wrong about this, it would be great for the US to implement a new agreement but under Bush I don't think it will happen.
0
streetsdisciple
Badges: 0
#608
Report 14 years ago
#608
"we fear what we dont understand, hate what we cant conquer, i guess its just the theory of man"
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#609
Report 14 years ago
#609
(Original post by Golden Maverick)
That is possible but how likely?
It has not started to reduce emissions, there have been no statements by the US government saying "we will not join Kyoto because we are waiting for a better plan", and Bush continues to promote industry, without limiting their emissions. Furthermore Bush is an oil man, he has too much vested interest and his campaign is too dependent on oil and industry for him to limit emissions.
If this was the case, surely the US would be in the best position to implement the idea, or at least to get it started. Again there has not been any evidence to suggest they are about to do this.

I hope I'm wrong about this, it would be great for the US to implement a new agreement but under Bush I don't think it will happen.
The US signed up and remains a signatory of the Kyoto protocol, it believes in low emissions. It doesnt believe in what it considers to be a flawed protocol. The Clinton administration, backed by US Congress, refused to consider the protocol unless developing nations were also set targets as part of the protocol. Clinton never even tried to ratify it. So lets put things in perspective before we start talking about Bush. He has committed US industry to reducing emissions relative to economic growth by 18% by 2012. He has said additional measures will be implemented if this is not achieved.
US Congress has also urged the Bush administration to consider an alternative global strategy to Kyoto that would be inclusive of both developed and developing nations.

http://www.eceee.org/latest_news/200...20020215.lasso
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#610
Report 14 years ago
#610
(Original post by vienna95)
The US signed up and remains a signatory of the Kyoto protocol, it believes in low emissions. It doesnt believe in what it considers to be a flawed protocol. The Clinton administration, backed by US Congress, refused to consider the protocol unless developing nations were also set targets as part of the protocol. Clinton never even tried to ratify it. So lets put things in perspective before we start talking about Bush. He has committed US industry to reducing emissions relative to economic growth by 18% by 2012. He has said additional measures will be implemented if this is not achieved.
US Congress has also urged the Bush administration to consider an alternative global strategy to Kyoto that would be inclusive of both developed and developing nations.

http://www.eceee.org/latest_news/200...20020215.lasso
"believes in low emissions" haha
I hope veryone notes the "relative to economic growth" clause. No one can ever accuse the americans of being inconsistent
tkfmbp
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#611
Report 14 years ago
#611
(Original post by foolfarian)
"believes in low emissions" haha
I hope veryone notes the "relative to economic growth" clause. No one can ever accuse the americans of being inconsistent
but consistently what ? is the question
0
Golden Maverick
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#612
Report 14 years ago
#612
(Original post by vienna95)
He has committed US industry to reducing emissions relative to economic growth by 18% by 2012. He has said additional measures will be implemented if this is not achieved.
US Congress has also urged the Bush administration to consider an alternative global strategy to Kyoto that would be inclusive of both developed and developing nations.

http://www.eceee.org/latest_news/200...20020215.lasso
Under these plans, the targets (not mandatory it seems) it is as you say tied to GDP rise. So, in 2003 US GDP growth was 3.1%

1.9 trillion tons 2002
Taking the GDP in 2002 and using a 3% growth rate (pretty average), if they meet their targets the output will be:
2.2 trillion tons 2012
So an outright increase of 300 billion tons
(figures from http://www.interexlebanon.com/)

Compare this to the UK targets under the kyoto agreement - an aim to reduce CO2 emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2010, NOT linked to GDP.

Given the US produced 36% of the worlds greenhouse gases in 1990, this watered down system they are proposing is laughable compared to what other countries have promised.
0
material breach
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#613
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#613
(Original post by Golden Maverick)
Under these plans, the targets (not mandatory it seems) it is as you say tied to GDP rise. So, in 2003 US GDP growth was 3.1%

1.9 trillion tons 2002
Taking the GDP in 2002 and using a 3% growth rate (pretty average), if they meet their targets the output will be:
2.2 trillion tons 2012
So an outright increase of 300 billion tons
(figures from http://www.interexlebanon.com/)

Compare this to the UK targets under the kyoto agreement - an aim to reduce CO2 emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2010, NOT linked to GDP.

Given the US produced 36% of the worlds greenhouse gases in 1990, this watered down system they are proposing is laughable compared to what other countries have promised.
Very good post!
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#614
Report 14 years ago
#614
(Original post by tkfmbp)
but consistently what ? is the question
self serving
material breach
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#615
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#615
(Original post by foolfarian)
self serving
In all fairness Foolfarian, very few of the worlds nations do anything to help those who do not have a voice, where they be tomorrows children or the starving in Africa. If Brown's marshall plan for Africa comes off it would help Africa probably but I would hope that all of the worlds developed nations take a step towards more moralistic policies in this century.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#616
Report 14 years ago
#616
(Original post by Golden Maverick)
Under these plans, the targets (not mandatory it seems) it is as you say tied to GDP rise. So, in 2003 US GDP growth was 3.1%

1.9 trillion tons 2002
Taking the GDP in 2002 and using a 3% growth rate (pretty average), if they meet their targets the output will be:
2.2 trillion tons 2012
So an outright increase of 300 billion tons
(figures from http://www.interexlebanon.com/)

Compare this to the UK targets under the kyoto agreement - an aim to reduce CO2 emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2010, NOT linked to GDP.

Given the US produced 36% of the worlds greenhouse gases in 1990, this watered down system they are proposing is laughable compared to what other countries have promised.
Of course, it assumes the rise of emissions but also while sustaining good economic growth. The rate of emissions is reduced but industry can afford to develop what they believe to be more valuable technology in protecting the environment. You suggested that the Bush administration had not considered a plan of its own, it clearly has. This is a national plan of feasible proportions. The Kyoto protocol is clearly more ambitious, but when its signatory members endanger their own industrial capability and yet still miss its targets, is that ambition worth it in the environmental long run?
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#617
Report 14 years ago
#617
(Original post by vienna95)
Of course, it assumes the rise of emissions but also while sustaining good economic growth. The rate of emissions is reduced but industry can afford to develop what they believe to be more valuable technology in protecting the environment. You suggested that the Bush administration had not considered a plan of its own, it clearly has. This is a national plan of feasible proportions. The Kyoto protocol is clearly more ambitious, but when its signatory members endanger their own industrial capability and yet still miss its targets, is that ambition worth it in the environmental long run?
Industry will never invest in environmental equipment unless absolutely forced to. You think we'd have sulphur scrubbers in place if the scandanavians hadn't kicked up such a fuss. Hell no. Why would they want to tie up vauluable investment capital in something which gives them directly no dividends. I'm certainly not aware of very substantial grant schemes for buying in new cleaner equipment
Thats a pisss poor excuse i'm afraid.

At least places like britain are trying, they're whipping emission regulations into line to force industry's hand - most of whom will comply. Take mercury levels, we're bringing in new laws meaning all crematoriums (responsible for circa 25% of all mercury released) will need mercury scrubbers in the flues.
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#618
Report 14 years ago
#618
(Original post by foolfarian)
Industry will never invest in environmental equipment unless absolutely forced to. You think we'd have sulphur scrubbers in place if the scandanavians hadn't kicked up such a fuss. Hell no. Why would they want to tie up vauluable investment capital in something which gives them directly no dividends. I'm certainly not aware of very substantial grant schemes for buying in new cleaner equipment
Thats a pisss poor excuse i'm afraid.
The Clean Air Act has traditionally used emissions trading to reduce sulphur dioxide levels in the 90s. These are proven to work. In addition, the government is also providing economic and legal incentives to industry if they lower and further test emission levels. This is proven in the car industry.
These are proven methods that are of interest to the relevant industry.
This is in addition to technological and scientific developments that are funded by the state and by private industry. Such developments rely on the strength of the economy.
0
Golden Maverick
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#619
Report 14 years ago
#619
(Original post by vienna95)
You suggested that the Bush administration had not considered a plan of its own, it clearly has.
Yes i did, and I was wrong.

Of course, it assumes the rise of emissions but also while sustaining good economic growth. The rate of emissions is reduced but industry can afford to develop what they believe to be more valuable technology in protecting the environment This is a national plan of feasible proportions. The Kyoto protocol is clearly more ambitious, but when its signatory members endanger their own industrial capability and yet still miss its targets, is that ambition worth it in the environmental long run?
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.

You may call the US plan more feasible, I would call it less effective. There is no mention of what happens if targets are not met. Countries that damage their industry by reducing emissions are going to do better at reducing emissions than if the same countries did not damage their industry, perhaps it would develop more sustainable industry.

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.

EDIT:
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?

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
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#620
Report 14 years ago
#620
(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.

EDIT:
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.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1439)
79.72%
Leave (366)
20.28%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise