georgeob1 wrote:
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.
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.
georgeob1 wrote:
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.
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.
georgeob1 wrote: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?
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?
georgeob1 wrote: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.
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.