Democrats and Climate Change

[Bravus]

(I put this in the general World Affairs forum rather than in Politics because it's more international in scope, but if the mods want to move it I'm fine with that)

We've just had an election in Australia, and after being one of two laggards on Kyoto in the developed world under the prior government, the first act of the new government was to ratify it.

America is heading into an election in a year, but I don't have a sense of the positions of the Democratic candidates on climate change. Would we be likely to see a similar dramatic change of course on this issue if you guys had a change of government? Or a more incremental change? Or no real change? And does it depend on who ends up being the candidate?

[Dr. Shane]

Correct me if I am wrong, but Kyoto doesn't apply to China or India. What good is that? Polluting industries will just relocate to nations that allow them. And since we all breathe the same air, what is the point? I guess it would solve the illegal immigration problem. All the jobs would go to the third world so the workers would follow.

[Bravus]

The current talks going on in Bali are intended to work toward a 'Kyoto 2' agreement that *does* include developing countries. Since we in the developed world have (a) already contributed the vast majority of the existing problem and ( already benefited massively in terms of lifestyle from that, it was fair and appropriate that we make the first moves on climate change (we also emit many times as much CO2 per capita and therefore have much more scope for reduction). But Australia is committed to a process of bringing the developing world, particularly China and India due to their massive populations and growth rates, into the process, and it looks as though the Bali round is heading toward that outcome... although the US is the major obstacle at the moment.

Anyway, hopefully that's addressed the concern you raised, at least to some extent, but you didn't answer my question.

[Dr. Shane]

The reason that Republicans gave for not supporting Kyoto was because it didn't include the developing world and thus would only lead to industry relocating to those countries. I have to say I agree with that.

If a new treaty includes the developing world, Republicans themselves may support it.

[CyberGuy]

The US Congress passed a law that was signed by Bush all cars have to have 35MPG fuel effenciency by 2020. I guess now is the time to buy that SUV or Minivan you always wanted.

[Neil D]

The US Congress passed a law that was signed by Bush all cars have to have 35MPG fuel effenciency by 2020. I guess now is the time to buy that SUV or Minivan you always wanted.

But that doesn't apply to China nor India...major contributors of the air pollution problem....Maybe we should relocate those jobs to underdeveloped countrys. Then maybe there would be less fighting, less explotation of the poor, and refocus the economy in the western nations better...

[carolaa]

Originally Posted By: CyberGuy

The US Congress passed a law that was signed by Bush all cars have to have 35MPG fuel effenciency by 2020. I guess now is the time to buy that SUV or Minivan you always wanted.

But that doesn't apply to China nor India...major contributors of the air pollution problem....Maybe we should relocate those jobs to underdeveloped countrys. Then maybe there would be less fighting, less explotation of the poor, and refocus the economy in the western nations better...

It doesn't really matter. What a joke. By 2020, it will be too late to turn it around. And you're right, we will probably outsource our pollution just like we outsource torture.