StSomewhere
Contributor
So the US has to compete in a globalized economy, but with restrictions that don't apply to "developing" nations like China. Bunk. Bogus. Bullcrap. We shouldn't sign on if China is exempted, thank Gawd that someone is smart enough to see that. I'd prefer to see greenhouse gases reduced, but not at the cost of turning the globalized economy over to the Chinas and Indias of this world.fairbanksdiver:I'm not so sure that the exemptions are worthless.. considering the logic behind them.
The exemptions are for "developing" countries, vs the "developed" countries. The idea is that the developing nations are still busy creating stable economies to be bothered with the additional cost of environmental-friendly industry practices. The developed nations are in a much better position to begin changes, and spending the massive amounts of money required to do so.
One of the US's chief complaints is that China was given developing nation status, and was exempt from a large portion of the Kyoto protocol. China's output of greenhouse gases is one of the largest in the world, second only to the US, and it's growing. China emits more greenhouse gas in one day, then Canada would in an entire year. And yet both Canada and the US were expected to comply with Kyoto, and China wasn't held accountable.
The exemptions alone don't make the treaty meaningless. The United States hegemonic position in the global community makes the treaty meaningless (for us). There is no enforcement mechanism capable of punishing the United States for noncompliance. How do you think we got away with Iraq when the UN told us no?
-B
This is another thread but couldn't go unchallenged: My only concern with Iraq is that we are bloating our deficit on a country that hated us (Sadam's Iraq) with another country that will hate us (Iranian-Mullah's Iraq). If they want to hate us, I don't care, but do it on their own dime not ours. Spend that money here where it will do some good here.