Quote:
|
Originally Posted by retsuki03
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.
|
There are probably no other trade agreements that are directly related to the Kyoto treaty, nor did I suggest that there were - but they all are affected by the Kyoto treaty.
When most of the world forms an agreement on trade, the global economy becomes entwined in that agreement. If you are not part of that agreement, you are limited in how efficiently you fit in with the global economy. Countries that are part of the agreement will have far more compatibility in negotiating trade of all kinds than countries that are not part of the agreement. As the U.S. has decided not to become a part of this significant aspect of the future global economy, it will suffer. Until it decides to put its head down and accept the terms that every other country requires.
Quote:
=retsuki03]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 the 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.
|
It seems naive to suggest that the absence of the single most polluting country on the planet would not make the headline, and to then "blame" the presence of that country in the headline on anti-Americanism. Also, China and India are part of the treaty - they have simply been afforded the understandable, and temporary, leeway in meeting the requirements of the treaty as their infrastructure is built. There is no logical explanation that could be made to require them to hinder their infrastructure development considering most of the other countries in the agreement have already been afforded that priviledge, particularly if that explanation is coming from the largest polluting nation on the planet.