|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:35 pm Post subject: U.S. Policy and Global Warming... |
 |
|
My own objections to the power-politics underlying the global warming debate (and not necessarily the debate itself, but the sociopolitical and economic agendas attaching themselves to much of it) are well known here.
Many lament or, more typically, attack American foreign policy (not to mention America's capitalist political economy and social system) as the virtual exclusive cause of global warming-related environmental problems. If only Washington would sign Kyoto...
But this idealism presupposes an American decisiveness that simply does not exist in the real world. After all, American foreign policy has explicitly aimed to prevent nuclear-weapons proliferation and undeniably failed in India, Pakistan, North Korea, and now, apparently, Iran. Behind much of this idealism are Americans themselves, as Americans have always held grossly-exaggerated notions of American influence and power in world affairs. Thus people blamed Truman for the Chinese Revolution, for example. (Who ever heard of Mao or his grass-roots supporters?)
That is, other world actors also shape world affairs, and they are not always in the most cooperative mood with respect to American foreign policy.
So, back to Kyoto. We know, for example, that Canada signed and ratified Kyoto -- and then saw its emissions increase over time.
| Quote: |
| On March 31, 2006, environment minister Rona Ambrose told a Vancouver audience that since ratifying Kyoto, Canada's "greenhouse gas emissions are up by 24 per cent � a far cry from the previous government's commitment to meet a target six per cent below the 1990 levels." |
CBC Report/Timeline
What about other Kyoto signatories? And what about China and India's emissions? Decreasing? Increasing? Remaining stable? What is "the rest of the world" up to with respect to Kyoto compliance...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
freethought
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:57 pm Post subject: Re: U.S. Policy and Global Warming... |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Many lament or, more typically, attack American foreign policy (not to mention America's capitalist political economy and social system) as the virtual exclusive cause of global warming-related environmental problems. If only Washington would sign Kyoto... |
Based on this and recent posts I think this is the only response required:
From Oxford Dictionary
| Quote: |
persecution complex noun an irrational and obsessive feeling or fear that one is the object of collective hostility or ill-treatment on the part of others. |
If you want to know how other countries are doing it's widely available online and about 1.2 seconds away via the google.
One last thing, the US Policy on Global Warming is that it isn't real or at the very least indispute. Whereas the rest of the world (with some exceptions a few countries and BJWD) have accepted the reality of man-made climate change/damage, the US lags behind.
This is important because the US is the 3rd largest country in the world in size. It has the 4th largest population. It has the world's largest economy. It is the world's richest and most powerful country. And is also the world's number 1 polluter.
This doesn't obsolve other nations of anything, but it is why the US has the focus on it. The story might be difference if the republican congress and then Bush hadn't refused to sign on to Kyoto, because in that case America would be just another nation failing to meet it's kyoto targets. But the unwillingness to sign on or even acknowledge reality, is why the US receives the attention and the criticism it currently faces. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes Gopher, you're right that the US isn't the only country that emits carbon, and does not have sole responsibility for dealing with the problem. All those on this board who have been arguing to the contrary will find it very difficult to contradict you on this.
Here is a chart that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that other countries besides the US are producing CO2:
source
As you can see, the US is only responsible for a quarter of the world's manmade CO2 emissions. Not only that, but many of these countries have not even been meeting the targets set by the Kyoto Protocol! If they weren't intending to keep to their treaty obligations they should have at least followed the lead of the United States and signed it but not ratified it..
| Gopher wrote: |
| And what about China and India's emissions? |
Good question! After all, why should the US do something if India and China aren't doing it? I get so sick of all those self-righteous hypocrites who complain about secret prisons, for example. If China gets to have secret prisons, why can't the US? Talk about a double standard.
One positive sign though is that it looks like the US and China are getting on the same page about this global warming nonsense. With many in the US correctly recognising that global warming is part of an antiAmerican plot to weaken the United States, and with China perceptively noticing that global warming is a machination on the part of the Western Imperialists to keep the developing world under their jackboots, both countries have been working to undermine the IPCC. Here's a story from yesterday:
U.S., China Got Climate Warnings Toned Down
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 7, 2007; Page A05
Some sections of a grim scientific assessment of the impact of global warming on human, animal and plant life issued in Brussels yesterday were softened at the insistence of officials from China and the United States, participants in the negotiations said.
In particular, U.S. negotiators managed to eliminate language in one section that called for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, said Patricia Romero Lankao, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., who was one of the report's lead authors.
In the course of negotiations over the report by the second working group of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, U.S. officials challenged the wording of a section suggesting that policymakers need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because countries will not be able to respond to climate change simply by using adaptive measures such as levees and dikes.
In that instance, the original draft read: "However, adaptation alone is not expected to cope with all the projected effects of climate change, and especially not over the long run as most impacts increase in magnitude. Mitigation measures will therefore also be required." That second sentence does not appear in the final version of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers. ... (article continues)
Full article here
Here's hoping this kind of glorious co-operation continues in the future.
Seek truthiness from facts! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wish I had your patience, GAJ. Here's my response to the little baby:
Irrelevant.
I'm not wasting my carbon footprint on such obvious B.S.
Sadly, in every instance, the redactions from the report were insisted on by.... politicians.
Scumbags.
Gotta love this, then, from the same article:
| Quote: |
But Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs a select House committee on climate change, said the administration is dealing only with a fraction of greenhouse gas emissions by regulating cars, and Congress is committed to passing a mandatory, economy-wide limit on emissions by the end of the year.
"The conclusions in the report are so scary that whatever success the Bush administration may have had in watering down the language won't have any impact on what the reaction of the world will be," Markey said in an interview, adding that Bush will soon have to decide whether to veto an emissions cap.
"Congress is heading toward a legislative showdown with the president on this issue. On that, there's no doubt." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
Yes Gopher, you're right that the US isn't the only country that emits carbon, and does not have sole responsibility for dealing with the problem. All those on this board who have been arguing to the contrary will find it very difficult to contradict you on this.
Here is a chart that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that other countries besides the US are producing CO2:
source
As you can see, the US is only responsible for a quarter of the world's manmade CO2 emissions. Not only that, but many of these countries have not even been meeting the targets set by the Kyoto Protocol! If they weren't intending to keep to their treaty obligations they should have at least followed the lead of the United States and signed it but not ratified it..
| Gopher wrote: |
| And what about China and India's emissions? |
Good question! After all, why should the US do something if India and China aren't doing it? I get so sick of all those self-righteous hypocrites who complain about secret prisons, for example. If China gets to have secret prisons, why can't the US? Talk about a double standard.
One positive sign though is that it looks like the US and China are getting on the same page about this global warming nonsense. With many in the US correctly recognising that global warming is part of an antiAmerican plot to weaken the United States, and with China perceptively noticing that global warming is a machination on the part of the Western Imperialists to keep the developing world under their jackboots, both countries have been working to undermine the IPCC. Here's a story from yesterday:
U.S., China Got Climate Warnings Toned Down
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 7, 2007; Page A05
Some sections of a grim scientific assessment of the impact of global warming on human, animal and plant life issued in Brussels yesterday were softened at the insistence of officials from China and the United States, participants in the negotiations said.
In particular, U.S. negotiators managed to eliminate language in one section that called for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, said Patricia Romero Lankao, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., who was one of the report's lead authors.
In the course of negotiations over the report by the second working group of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, U.S. officials challenged the wording of a section suggesting that policymakers need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because countries will not be able to respond to climate change simply by using adaptive measures such as levees and dikes.
In that instance, the original draft read: "However, adaptation alone is not expected to cope with all the projected effects of climate change, and especially not over the long run as most impacts increase in magnitude. Mitigation measures will therefore also be required." That second sentence does not appear in the final version of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers. ... (article continues)
Full article here
Here's hoping this kind of glorious co-operation continues in the future.
Seek truthiness from facts! |
That's all well and good, but manmade climate change is a massive scam based on flawed computer modelling, bad science and anti-western ideology. It's propaganda and a massive pack of lies. Get with the freakin' program? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| After all, why should the US do something if India and China... |
Suppose for argument's sake America ratifies and implements Kyoto in good faith. Further suppose America scales back its economy (and loses global hegemony) and accepts that China and India are entitled to catch-up -- so neither of these nation-states need abide by Kyoto's restrictions but may continue industrializing until they are equally powerful in influencing and shaping world affairs.
That is their and other Third-World governments' position, incidentally.
What makes you so confident that they will stop there? That they will work in good faith and altruistically towards sustainability and ecological responsibility in world affairs?
BLT calls all of this "irrelevant" -- hardly surprising, given his demonstrated highly-versatile vocabulary, "scumbags" and all. But if you are truly interested in grasping the American govt's position in rejecting Kyoto and resisting global-warming theory, although it may be nice and neat and convenient to blame Exxon's alleged greed and depravity, you would need to move beyond simplistic monocausality and address Kyoto's power-political issues I have reviewed here.
Global-warming's seriousness aside -- and I have never meant to suggest it is not a serious issue -- the politics of the debate preoccupy the American govt and many corporations. Yet instead of negotiating with or aiming to persuade them, many global-warming proponents merely move to discredit and alienate them and force submission. In doing so, they forget one of Dale Carnegie's fundamental recommendations: if you want the honey, there are far better ways to go about it than kicking the beehive...
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:49 pm; edited 9 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saw6436
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Daejeon, ROK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great thread, Gopher. Glad at least some are clear-headed on this forum. DID YOU HEAR THAT, MANNER-OF-SPEAKING? 
gang ah jee is correct to point out just how many nations contribute to this supposed malaise. And what the American bashers fail to acknowledge is that the U.S. also is by far the most productive nation, generating more goods and therefore also as a matter of course using more energy.
Nor is the global warming debate closed, although Al Gore would like it to be.
Consider this story for instance:
| Quote: |
Forecaster blasts Gore on global warming CAIN BURDEAU, AP Apr 7
A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.
"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech.
A spokeswoman said Gore was on a flight from Washington, D.C., to Nashville Friday; he did not immediately respond to Gray's comments.
Gray, an emeritus professor at the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University, has long railed against the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.
Over the past 24 years, Gray, 77, has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster; recently, his mentee, Philip Klotzbach, has begun doing the bulk of the forecasting work.
Gray's statements came the same day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved a report that concludes the world will face dire consequences to food and water supplies, along with increased flooding and other dramatic weather events, unless nations adapt to climate change.
Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.
Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," has helped fuel media attention on global warming.
Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor who had feuded with Gray over global warming, said Gray has wrongly "dug (his) heels in" even though there is ample evidence that the world is getting hotter. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freethought
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, if I get this right, the entire world must suffer for the sake of american wealth and power...
Despite Spinoza's brilliance in refuting the scientific side, the science of a 'problem' is overwhelming. Said 'problem' goes WAY beyond mere temperature variances, but extends to air and water sustainability.
All that aside, the only legitimate question posed is what happens if the US does take steps and countries like India and China don't. My response to that is that anyone who is hugely concerned about India has never been there. Moreover there's the issue of wealth per capita, and it will likely be forever before the India or China can come close to matching the US. Then on top of all of this is the thing that American industry has been doing better than anyone else since the industrial revolution... building entire new technologies. If the US were to seize the initiative and pour resources and effort into developing an entire new technological system it would virtually ensure American supremacy; economic, technological and military. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mnhnhyouh
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is the rub for those who point out that others also produce CO2. The U.S. makes up about 5% of the worlds population, but produces 25% of the CO2.
h |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Suppose for argument's sake America ratifies and implements Kyoto in good faith. Further suppose America scales back its economy (and loses global hegemony) and accepts that China and India are entitled to catch-up -- so neither of these nation-states need abide by Kyoto's restrictions but may continue industrializing until they are equally powerful in influencing and shaping world affairs.
That is their and other Third-World governments' position, incidentally.
What makes you so confident that they will stop there? That they will work in good faith and altruistically towards sustainability and ecological responsibility in world affairs? |
Ok, you've stuck in unjustified suppositions here. The US losing global economic hegemony does not automatically follow from the US implementing Kyoto. As far as I know, there is some decent evidence that the development of more environmentally neutral technologies has the potential to be beneficial to the economy - think about if New Zealand gets a decent share of the world market for that new solar technology, for example. If US companies have incentives to develop and implement solutions to the oncoming crisis, that will certainly help the US's position, no? The market demand for environmentally 'friendly' products and services will be incredibly high, after all. And China and India are certainly doing themselves no favours by crapping in their own living rooms.
But essentially your argument here is based on the Prisoner's Dilemma - if the US accepts Kyoto, China and India could defect, making it the Sucker. That's true. Of course, the flipside of this is that if the US starts the game by defecting off the bat, then what are the chances of more economically fragile countries putting themselves in the Sucker's position? The most effective long term strategy in Prisoner's Dilemma is tit-for-tat - the player should always start by cooperating, then match the other player's moves. That doesn't guarantee that other players will always cooperate, but it increases the likelihood a great deal.
The other obvious point here is that, without Kyoto, the US can never take any kind of moral highground on the issue. Neither can it ever implement any policies that might encourage developing economies to reduce pollution outputs without appearing hypocritical and fostering more anti-Americanism. Essentially, if the US actually takes global warming seriously it will have to walk the walk first. Remember, of all the good that the US has done in the world to date, most of it comes directly from simply setting a good example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| if the US accepts Kyoto, China and India could defect, making it the Sucker. That's true. Of course, the flipside of this is that if the US starts the game by defecting off the bat, then what are the chances of more economically fragile countries putting themselves in the Sucker's position? |
My understanding, Gang ah jee, is that Kyoto exempts China and India.
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| The most effective long term strategy in Prisoner's Dilemma is the player should always start by cooperating, then match the other player's moves... |
Yes. Kissinger's "step-by-step" diplomacy. Been a long time since I have seen any foreign govts take any steps at all vis-a-vis the American govt but to bitterly criticize, condemn, if not outright scapegoat.
Just saw Tehran clumsily try to artificially start such a process with Britain (apparently hoping to drive a wedge between Britain and the Security Council on the nucelar-weapons issue) by illegally-seizing its sailors and marines and then taking the step of releasing them in good faith. And without batting an eye, shamelessly asking for reciprocity within a day.
This is the kind of diplomacy I see now.
In any case, here is President Bill Clinton on Kyoto and its politics...
| William J. Clinton wrote: |
The international conference on climate change was coming up in December in Kyoto, Japan. I strongly favored setting aggressive targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions for both developed and developing nations, but I wanted to achieve the targets not through regulations and taxes but through market incentives to promote energy conservation and the use of clean energy technology...
The...global warming talks opened on December 1. Before they were over, Al Gore flew to Japan to help our chief negotiator...Stu Eizenstat, get an agreement we could sign, with firm targets but without undue restrictions on how to achieve them and with a call for developing countries like China and India to participate; within thirty years they would surpass the United States as emitters of greenhouse gasses (the United States is now the world's leading emitter). Unless the changes were made,I couldn't submit the treaty to Congress; it would be difficult to pass in the best of circumstances. |
Clinton, My Life, 767, 769-770.
Here are W. Bush's words on the matter. Note the centrality of Kyoto's underlying power-politics.
| George W. Bush wrote: |
| As you know, I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. The Senate's vote, 95-0, shows that there is a clear consensus that the Kyoto Protocal is an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns. |
White House Statement |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A high gas tax of 5.00 a gallon will cut US emissions way down and it as a bonus it will bankrupt the terrorists. The US needs to go all out to win.
The US needs to put the same effort into this war as it did in World War II.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| if the US accepts Kyoto, China and India could defect, making it the Sucker. That's true. Of course, the flipside of this is that if the US starts the game by defecting off the bat, then what are the chances of more economically fragile countries putting themselves in the Sucker's position? |
My understanding, Gang ah jee, is that Kyoto exempts China and India. |
Yes, I thought that was implicit. Your objection to Kyoto is about whether or not China and India will come to the party when economic circumstances permit, no?
| Gopher wrote: |
Been a long time since I have seen any foreign govts take any steps at all vis-a-vis the American govt but to bitterly criticize, condemn, if not outright scapegoat.
Just saw Tehran clumsily try to artificially start such a process with Britain (apparently hoping to drive a wedge between Britain and the Security Council on the nucelar-weapons issue) by illegally-seizing its sailors and marines and then taking the step of releasing them in good faith. And without batting an eye, shamelessly asking for reciprocity within a day.
This is the kind of diplomacy I see now. |
Ok, well the rest of us haven't been particularly impressed with the United States' diplomacy and foreign policy either - Iraq, anyone? Of course, as you know, part of the strength of the tit-for-tat strategy is that it does not bear grudges. We wouldn't want to make the same mistake as Klimt's Angel of History, would we? 
More than that, what would you suggest? You don't want to sign Kyoto, fine. I think most people feel that, since the US defected, the protocol is pretty much dead these days anyway. Shall we simply stick our heads in the sand about the problem? Or perhaps the light of the free world could take some initiative in setting up a more effective solution? In light of the section of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (pdf) that came out on Friday, taking some decisive action could generate a lot of goodwill internationally.
(And I have to say I'm surprised that a) you have Clinton's autobiography lying around and b) you would quote George W. Bush with a straight face.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| Your objection to Kyoto is about whether or not China and India will come to the party when economic circumstances permit, no? |
That is right. I share the same objection of those American policymakers who rejected Kyoto, partly on these grounds.
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| ...the rest of us haven't been particularly impressed with the United States' diplomacy and foreign policy either - Iraq, anyone? |
Impasse again. Nowhere to go from here except to say "this is why we are not so enthusiastic to sit at the table and talk with 'the rest of you.'" You harbor hard and fast and extremely harsh opinions about us, for one.
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| ...perhaps the light of the free world could take some initiative. |
Same as above. And I thought we had left this kind of snickering sarcasm behind us, Gang ah jee.
In any case, this returns us to my "If-only-America-had-signed-Kyoto" U.S.-centrism criticism.
Canada signed Kyoto. Then its emissions rose. How would America's signing Kyoto have changed that? And that is just Canada. How have the other Kyoto signatories behaved...?
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| (And I have to say I'm surprised that a) you have Clinton's autobiography lying around and b) you would quote George W. Bush with a straight face.) |
(a) That is right; and
(b) That is also right. You see no value in citing W. Bush's explanation for why he opposed Kyoto?
It seems to me that "the rest of the world" is in no mood to cooperate with American initiatives but would rather sneer, as you regrettably do, above, Gang ah jee. It also seems to me that "the rest of the world's" initiatives are thinly-disguised pretexts that, in one way or another, take aim against the United States's position in world affairs and are not as genuine and sincere as you and others who share your views might believe.
Apparently, whether these perceptions reflect actual reality or not, we are headed nowhere good. I guess "the rest of the world" will occupy the moral high ground and be able to continue telling Americans off when and if the seas flood their coastal cities or they die by the millions from drought.
Conversely, do not see how America will occupy a morally-superior position in any of this. But I do know that it takes more than one party to bicker and destablize negotiating spaces... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
