Quote:
|
Originally Posted by manx
I would say it is just the opposite, which is why the U.S. will, sooner or later, find itself joining the treaty. As with most international trade agreements, which Kyoto assuredly is, there are typically plenty of negative consequences but in regards to the global economy, they are a boon.
|
What international trade agreements are related to Kyoto apart from the emissions credits trading program? How are they a blessing to the global economy?
I don't see the US join ever joining a the Kyoto or a treaty like it. If the US decides to limit or lower emissions, it will be on its own terms without regard to international treaties.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jorgelito
To paraphrase the above statements, there are just as many economists saying it's good as there are economists saying it's bad. Might as well toss a coin *groan*
|
I was curious if you had any reading saying that Kyoto was good for the US economy? Assuming that their are conflicting reports on the economical impact of Kyoto, I think it would be best to read them, and then make a decision (rather than flipping a coin
) I know you were just kidding, but I would like to read anything you have.
One thing that I find interesting is how I saw many reports on the day Kyoto went into effect titled, "Kyoto Starts Despite US Boycott." I realize that the US CO2 emissions amount to about 30% of the total global emissions, but I think the real reason for this framing is to perpetuate an anti-american sentiment. I don't believe the papers in the UK and France are actively or maliciously trying screw the US, but I believe they are catering to their audience. Much like conservatives read the WSJ and liberals the NY Times.
Regardless of my little theory, I did notice that most the articles I read did not mention Australia, China, or India.