Is the US viewed as an interrnational bully?

Why would you not have signed it craven?

Because of the political backlash. Early in a term it would have been difficult to cross the greedy industries. Bush's would have had hell if he had signed.

I would have tied China's entry to the WTO to its signing of the treaty. I'd have used one of many angles we have on Russia to get them to sign. All the while I'd make it clear that my intention is to sign.

Once they had tentatively gotten on board I'd sign but make it clear that we would not ratify without comprehensive solidarity. Thus I'd have brought more countries into the fold insead of shunning them. The way we dismissed the treaty made other countries dismiss it too. A pollution treaty without the US isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Indeed.

We haven't signed it either - but we are little bastids - still bastids though...

Craven,

The United States is by far the world's greatest producer - of all goods, food, manufactured products, and technology. On a more meaningful scale, pollution per unit of production, we are one of the world's cleanest nations. To both feed the world and limit greenhouse gases we need clean production, and the United States leads in that category.

Within 15 years China's production of greenhouse gasses will eclipse that of the United States. India will pass us in 20 years. If the cultivation of carbon sinks was included in the calculations (as we requested in the negotiations) both of these nations would be ahead of us now.

What constitutes "too great a hit" to our industries? How do you measure that? Indeed how do you know? On the contrary the real solution to the greenhouse gas problem is the development and deployment of efficient new technologies for energy and transportation - here I mean things that really work on a large scale, not wind & solar power or hydrogen "fuel", etc. These technologies will almost certainly come from the United States. Why kill or injure the goose that lays the golden eggs?

President Clinton signed the Kyoto treaty but sat on it for over a year without ever submitting it to the Senate for ratification. The Senate had already voted 97 to 1 a resolution indicating it would reject the treaty if submitted. This is the situation President Bush inherited.

There was no surprise that we would ultimate reject this seriously flawed treaty. The furor was, and is, mostly political.

Deb,

He he, youse don't pollute much but you get the brunt of it (re ozone) LOL.

Tis a sad laugh, at your expense yes, but with sympathy.

True, but why should other nations care? Us being the greatest producer in addition to the greatest polluter is to them two lumps on their heads. Feeding the world is a slight exagerration but yes, we have a very green populace and it's reflected in our industry. Out polluting is due to our excess.



But they are not fully developed, hence their trepidation. We have almost always been the world's greatest polluter. Statistics about the future isn't going to ameliorate anyone's CURRENT animosity. You asked why the US took flak for its position and I stated why, I heartily agree that those nations need to get on board too.



Get real, America will not suffer to the point that it is not the leading economic and technological superpower in our lifetimes. The treaty would have hastened those technologies and our economy would still tower over everyone else's. In any case I was explaining why the world was mad. Do you concede that our position atop the polluters hall of fame had a bit to do with it?



Amen, both presidents knew that it was political suicide. I do not fault Bush or Clinton for the rejection but America as a whole. The richest nation on earth is being to greedy to take a step in the right direction for our planet and our future. Morality is not contingient on the acts of others we SHOULD adhere to the principles of Kyoto regardless of who signs it. But like I said I wouldn't have signed it in that circumstance either. Morals and politics are not good bedfellows.

Craven,

Some of your assertions are inconsistent with the facts. Until it (1) developed and deployed the widespread use of nuclear power, beginning in the late '60s, and (2) abandoned the widespread use of high sulfur, low energy content brown coal and replaced it with suddenly abundant gas from Lybia and Russia, Europe was, by a very wide margin, the #1 polluter in the Northern Hemisphere, and likely the world.

Those famous London fogs were a product of the widespread burning of brown coal, and the mortality it caused was large indeed. By contrast the Wyoming coal that fuels most U.S. electrical production has twice the heating value (BTU/lb.) and one-third the sulfur content of European brown coal. (moreover the combustion & power recovery technology used today is a good deal better that that of even a few decades ago.)

Western Europe produces about 45% of its electrical power in nuclear reactors. That is well over twice the level that prevails in the United States. We could, by the way, reach the greenhouse gas goals "assigned" to us in the ill-fated Kyoto treaty merely by raising our use of nuclear power to european levels. Would you approve of that?

By a very wide margin the greatest polluter, in terms of pollution/unit of production and even in absolute terms, were the "peoples republics" of the Soviet Empire. I have personal experience with the investigation & initial cleanup of the Nova Hut coal & steel complex and can tell you that it is unlike anything ever done here. It is interesting that a good deal of the electrical power consumed in Germany is imported from Poland where the the old methods still prevail. Germany however does not count the air emissions that result from this power production as belonging to her. Interesting.

Most of (West-)European coal is hard coal, besides some great pits between Aix-la-Chapelle and Cologne and south of Berlin. (Power stations here are going to be stopped completely.)

The West-European power net UCTE and the Central-European net CENTREL are combined, which means that especially Czechian power is imported by Germany. Poland covers only a minimal percantage - up to now.
We get much more power from Austrain and Swiss water power stations. We don't count this to our air emission as well, which you, George, will certainly find interesting as well.

I've tried to find some figures about it - but even 'greenpeace' says that there is no power import from Poland to Germany and just some minor imports from Slovacia and Czechia http://www.greenpeace.org/deutschland/fakten/energie/

george,

Europe is not a country. But I concede my hyperbole, when the US was being colonized it was certainly not the greatest polluter so yes I exaggerated. But that doesn't change the fact that we are the only nation to take such a commanding lead in the race to pollute this planet.

Pointing fingers at others doesn't change what we should be doing.

But we digress. Let's start a discussion about Kyoto and we can go into detail there. You asked why people faulted the US more than others re Kyoto and I answered that it's because we are the greatest polluter. I think that's a valid reason. I also stated that I would not have signed it so I'm not trying to defend it.

-----

Back to the subject (and your analogy).

It can be said that the US is the teacher and the rest of the world is its students only if it can be said that the teacher has his scions in the classroom and always takes their side and displays immense favoritism to them.

We are not impartial educators we are a superpower who is mining our interests. We are benevolent in that powers of this magnitude are rarely as well behaved but that doesn't make us right whne we wrong, and the attitudes that make for comparisons where the US is lord over the enthralled like the teacher student comparison is in large part the source of the resentment.

In our society we determine that we should have teachers, the taught are the yougsters. In your analogy it's fitting except that the teacher is a youngster and the elderly are being " taught" agaist their will without having accepted that there should be a headmaster at all.

I think that we have become bullies. While it's true that countries have viewed us as such for a long time, now we have actually become such. At least we used to have some credibility and we were never seen as aggressors. busy bodies, know it all and arrogant maybe but we could rely on the fact that we were not viewed as being the first to attack. That has all changed and we have lost our moral and ethical standing in the world. This administration has bullied the UN and other countries just to get them to support it's personal agenda. It has not been about what is best for us or the world but what is best for GWB and friends.

Bullying never works and even if you are able to get your way now, what it destroys will be something that will come back to bite you. It will take YEARS to overcome the hostility we are facing and we have lost something even more precious "trust". When you have a President who announces the things Bush does without offering up anything to support the allegations then you lose a lot.

Knowing how to use your power and when to force it is what makes you a good leader. Just being able to force your will on others and making John Wayne like speeches doesn't do anything to your reputation. Our problem now is that we are seen as arrogant renegades that no longer wishes to be part of the global community but instead think ourseleves above it.

You were supposed to go here first, Redheat, so I could welcome you to a2k.

Welcome New Members Thread

LOL Well thanks

just a thought here but when i was living in Saudi Arabia as a child (father worked for Aramco) the USA/GB contract called for paying the Saudi govt 11 cents per barrel of oil. King Saud took that money and sent his children to be educated in Europe in USA and when they returned they were knowledgeable about how they were being rippid off so therein lies the birth of OPEC. this may not directly indictate America being a bully but it certainly indicates having duped a nation for economic gain, leaving a bad taste in the mouth of the "natives".

dyslexia
They also learned how to live the good life and rip off the rest of their countrymen. I guess you could say they went from the screwee to the screwer.

Here's the Kyoto topic:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=55882#55882

Attention all:

Debate guidelines for the Politics Forum have now been put in place. Please read and abide by them.
http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2594

Instead of belittling the image of
USA or Israel Or India Or Germany
let us refurbish our individual images.
Expose hypocracy