US Opposes G8 Climate Proposals

elrond writes "The US appears to have summarily rejected draft proposals for G8 members that would have agreed to tougher measures for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. The BBC reports that leaked documents have indicated the positions of the various world powers, from the timetable-setting of Germany to the US's intractable stance. Red ink comments on the documents hint at the US's irritation: 'The US still has serious, fundamental concerns about this draft statement. The treatment of climate change runs counter to our overall position and crosses 'multiple red lines' in terms of what we simply cannot agree to ... We have tried to tread lightly but there is only so far we can go given our fundamental opposition to the German position.'"

Comments

sanctions are inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

surely its only a matter of time before europe imposes trade tarrifs on US goods? Otherwise they are basically subsidising US industry, operating with far looser environmental standards. I'm sure the US will complain and 'retaliate', but I don't see any other option in the long term.

Re:sanctions are inevitable

[MrMr]

But it already is a down and dirty trade war:
Both the Clinton and the Bush administration have implicitly admitted that the US cannot compete in a free market system if the real cost of pollution costs would have to paid. Therefore allowing pollution for profit is just one of the weapons in a trade-war, just like for instance allowing copyright infringment for profit, or manipulating exchange rates to damage your opponents.

Re:sanctions are inevitable

[malsdavis]

"USA seems to be saying to the world, "we don't care about the planet""

I think the current US administration made this position pretty clear a couple of years ago when they struck down a WTO proposal for "origin of timber" certification to reduce illegally logged timber coming from protected rainforests.

In that case there was absolutely no doubt that striking down the proposal would cause deforestation within the designated national parks of third world countries, but it was still struck down by the Bush's representative "in the name of free trade".

Re:sanctions are inevitable

[Coryoth]

Both the Clinton and the Bush administration have implicitly admitted that the US cannot compete in a free market system if the real cost of pollution costs would have to paid. Certainly that's relatively verifiable from a CO2 emissions basis. While not perfect (what data is?) this table provides a rough analysis of GDP with respect to CO2 emissions. The US does not fare well in comparison to many European countries. On the other hand, the US is also far from the bottom, being streets ahead of China. The US is at the very least notably above the world average. Most of the worst offenders in terms of efficiency are former Soviet States that presumably are stuck with primitive industrial infrastructure, and not much of an economy. Given that table, however, there is plenty of other finger pointing that can go on. Canada, which likes to think well of itself, fares little better than the US.

Re:sanctions are inevitable

[zippthorne]

OK, but how much of Switzerland's GDP depends on, for instance, Banking, an industry notoriously devoid of any inherent CO2 needs. The table needs some refinement, because a large industry of shifting signatures around is going to affect the GDP without increasing emissions and without necessarily increasing the real wealth either.

Re:I heart Dinosaurs

[dal20402]

Parent is not a troll. It's an informative post.

There's not much political benefit to environmental stewardship when a considerable majority of your supporters have no interest in empirical truth. Most Bush voters believe exactly what parent said: Jesus will come again and they will be swept into heaven before the environmental consequences of their actions cause them any harm.

God

[southern yank]

That's exactly right. I read a Gore Vidal essay explaining how Regan was absolutely convinced that the biblical end of times would be within his lifetime. It's scary to think how such beliefs influence national policy. Vidal also proposed that no president should be elected who holds a literal view of the bible. I wonder how much the Christian Right influences Bush's environmental policy.

Why bother looking out for future generations if the leader of the free world believes we'll all be getting beamed up in a few years?

A dangerous rogue nation

[presidenteloco]

Someone should come right out and call a shovel a shovel.

The U.S.A. is essentially an international criminal state on this issue,
and it's time that the rest of the world agreed to take some serious
punitive measures.

I think sanctions would be a good first step.

"No oil for you!"

('til you learn how to use it like a responsible adult.)

Re: Link to the leaked document

[sousoux]

It seems to me that the best way for the rest of the world to react would be to stop negotiating with the US as a country and move to negotiating with the states. Some of them are as large as a reasonably sized country and act as such. California, for example, seems very ready to move on climate change.

The other states, some of which seem to have "rogue governments" that look very much like "axis of evil", can easily be ostracized. Sanctions can be implemented such as travel restrictions for their elected officials or freezing of funds in foreign bank accounts.

Of course military action cannot be ruled out but liberating Texas may be difficult.

Watered down proposals

[r_newman]

The other G8 nations are coming to the table with proposals that are already very much watered down, due to the demands of big business, and of course political expediency. That the US isn't even prepared to entertain these weak and inadequate changes shows the lack of regard they truly have for the state of the planet on which we live. They should try to bear in mind that the rest of us also have to live with the consequences of their selfishness and shortsightedness.

Re:Interlectual Property is not scarce

[xelah]

That is why appeals to non-scarcity cannot differentiate IP from other property.

You're joking, right??? The term this thread is searching for is 'non-rival' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics) ). Apples are rivalrous goods. If I eat an apple I reduce the amount of apple left for everyone else. Housing services (think 'house-months') are, too. If I live in a house for a month, I reduce the amount of housing left for everyone else for that month. A musical recording, or a piece of software, is non-rival. If I listen to (or copy) some country music it doesn't - regrettably - reduce the amount of country music left in the world for everyone else.

That is the difference, and is why intellectual property is fundamentally different. No free market can produce an optimal outcome for an economy containing non-rival goods (see my other post on the first theorem of welfare economics). With no IP protection there's too little incentive to generate IP. With IP protection people who might benefit from the IP but not by enough to pay the market price cannot make use of it, and this can add up to a lot of lost economic welfare (especially for those in poorer countries - consider AIDS drugs). There's a second-best maxima at some level of IP protection, but it isn't as much as the perfect economic choices (all IP which costs less to produce than the total benefits is produced, and anyone who can benefit from it uses it freely).