|
| quote: | | Renegade and others would like us to belive that a Nation's leader does not repersent the Nations people, particularly in democracy. I will call this blantly idealistic and untrue. All though a Nation never repersents ALL its people, it repersents MOST its people. |
Yeah, I don't disagree that within a democratic society, the leaders, by and large, represent the views of the majority. But at the same time, I simply wish to make the distinction between the government and the people, because the decisions that the government makes are tangible and thus open to critique, whereas I cannot possibly make judgements on the American people, given that I have never lived there. For me to generalise and say "Americans support this" or "I completely disagree with Americans because...." is illogical. Perhaps the majority of Americans do support the things I oppose, but it still doesn't give me the right to make generalisations about the entire populace.
Perhaps it's just my PC side coming out, but I've made the distinction for a reason. I don't think it's overly important, but I feel I should make this clear so as to avoid being accused of making attacks that could be construed as "personal" when that wasn't my intention at all.
| quote: | | But the fact is, most of the world is not under the same constraints. And for Bush this was a sore spot, as he belives China (I agree with him) is the most likely canidate for the next super-power. They will be greatly helped with the Kyoto treaty as they can pollute limitless, and America would have to halt production, decreasing its ability to compete. |
No, no, no. Within the Kyoto protocol, it does allow for some countries to increase pollution, but at the same time these increases, in theory, ensure that these countries do not increase pollution at the rate that they may otherwise do. So, for instance, Australia was allowed a small increase in emmissions, but the increase in emitions was likely to be higher without the protocol in place. So, in effect, all countries, in some way, are constrained in the emmissions that they can produce, and no country was given free range to produce as much pollution as they like.
As for your superpower theory, I think most analysts agree that China will overtake the US as the main global economic force within the next 50 odd years, Kyoto Protocol or not. It makes no sense to allow for the pollution of our planet simply to delay the inevitable - isn't it arrogant to assume that China will be a less worthy superpower than the US anyway? If that's the assumption your fears are based on?
| quote: | | Now correct me if I am wrong Renegade, as all my facts on Kyoto come from a year back when it was actually relevant, but wasn't the deal if it was being signed by all the nations that it would be forced upon the nations who did not agree? |
Well my memory on the issue is a bit hazy now, so I could be wrong, but I think the idea was that most of the countries - particularly those with large, already established economies - would sign the protocol, and then use this collective power to influence other nations into complying with it.
Though, so far as I know, if a country didn't sign the treaty, then there is no way the deal can be "forced" upon them.
|