<br>If they would force ALL countries that signed it to have to live up to its standards then you would see most of the countries bail.
<br><br>If you're suggesting that non-Annex countries should be held to the same standard as Annex 1 countries, I would be very interested to hear your rationale. If they were, you're right, they would bail; the poorest like Viet Nam, whose emissions largely come from the burning of wood for personal energy production, could not expect to meet basic human survival if disallowed current emissions. Others, like fast-developing South Korea, could not expect to meet 1990 standards because they are so far beyond them, as the majority of its economic development has occurred in the time since then. It is simply an economic impossibility for most non-Annex countries to meet the Annex 1 standard. <br><br>
All these 3rd world countries want this to go through because the USA and other modern (civilized) countries would suffer while they benifit by having industries relocate to their countries.... It is a horrible horrible deal.
<br><br>With all due respect, from this statement I'm assuming that you've not familiarized yourself with the mechanisms Kyoto proposes to be available to Annex 1 countries as a means of meeting emissions reductions (namely joint implementation, clean development mechanisms like carbon sink investment, and trading schemes). Moreover, your implicit argument that despite developed countries like the US being largely responsible for global carbon emissions (see
cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/top20_2000.gif
), they should nonetheless not be required to reduce at a greater level is illogical from an equity basis. <br><br>Do they think we should foot the bill? Yes! So do I. Do they think that if we were able to develop using our natural resources they should be able to as well? Of course. Not only is an equitable and fair stance, it's also the only realistic way to achieve global reductions in the long-term; developing countries cannot partake in the new economy if they don't have the infrastructure that comes from the old--which requires a certain level of natural resource dependence/pollution creation/carbon emission. This not to suggest that once a non-Annex country has reached a certain threshold it should not be subject to certain standards. But then, Kyoto doesn't suggest that isn't the case in the longer term. It's a flexible agreement that is intended to evolve - much like our system of government. <br><br>
Mt StHelens spews out more CO2 then Kyoto could ever hope to remove.
<br><br>First off, Kyoto does not propose to remove any CO2, it plans to reduce future emissions. Why? because the impacts of global warming (which is a fact, mind you. Fact. Even the Bush Administration has accepted/admitted it, so people on this thread might as well too), while not wholly known, threaten not only natural disaster but global economic disaster as well. Secondly, I highly doubt your science on St. Helen's. Assuming it were right for argument's sake, however, the answer would be that if we could stop St. Helen's emissions from going into the air, I'm guessing we would. But we can't - we can only impact anthropogenic sources.<br><br>
It would do nothing except raise the cost of living for everyone and pocket more money for the government lobbiest partners that are pushing for this stuff.<br>
<br><br>Quite the opposite, doing nothing is far more likely to achieve this end, especially in the long-term. Unfortunately, however, the consequenses you propose are a more likely result of the present US policy.<br><br><br>Look, I am the first to admit that Kyoto is not a perfect accord. There are legitimate economic arguments to this end, but what I've seen in this discussion aren't them. Largely this stems from the nature of international politics and the limitations of a Conference of the Parties approach. Until we have an overseeing international body that could enforce the alternative approaches, however, this is about as good as we can do for now.<br><br>If you've an informed opposing view, I'm more than willing to read it.
