Posted on 10/13/2005 12:49:49 PM PDT by proud_yank
ALTHOUGH the US, the world’s leading carbon polluter, remains outside the Kyoto Protocol, its hand could well be forced in the not too distant future. Having declined to ratify Kyoto, the US is not obliged to meet the emission reduction targets the protocol lays down, ostensibly on the grounds that it would hurt the US economy.
By staying out, the US could gain significant economic advantage over its industrialised counterparts that are party to the protocol as they will, in the short term, incur major implementation costs.
Not surprisingly, these countries are so peeved that they may turn to the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
The General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, predecessor to the WTO, contained a provision that could be used to provide some protection for the environment. It recognised that, in exceptional circumstances — including the need to protect human, animal or plant life or health, and to conserve exhaustible natural resources — international trade could be restricted.
The WTO founding documentation states that while “trade and economic endeavour should be conducted with a view to raising standards of living”, it should allow “for the optimal use of the world’s resources in accordance with the objective of sustainable development”. It should also seek to protect and preserve the environment and enhance the means for doing so “in a manner consistent with their respective needs and concerns at different levels of economic development”.
The US has been an almost constant agitator for free trade and the widening reach of the WTO. It has also often resorted to the WTO’s appellate body — its ultimate authority — for dispute resolution.
One such instance was an appeal it brought against Malaysia, the Philippines, India and Thailand, involving a US ban on shrimp imports from these countries because their fishing methods had a huge environmental cost, particularly on migrating sea turtles drowned in the nets.
The four countries instituted action at the WTO and won, and the US took the issue to the appellate body, which ruled that members could restrict imports on environmental grounds provided the aim was to protect shared natural resources.
But the US lost its appeal because it had applied its conservation measures in a discriminatory way — it was importing shrimp from some of its neighbours who were not protecting turtles, and it had not exhausted environmental diplomacy.
The US relied on two treaties — the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on the Law of the Sea — to back its case. Yet it is a party to neither.
Prof Phillipe Sands, an international lawyer, believes it is not impossible that Kyoto signatories will draw analogies with this case and institute action on the same grounds. After all, it is incontrovertible that the climate is a shared natural resource; the measures being taken will lead to some protection from greater change; and diplomacy has been exhausted.
Several consequences could ensue. The US could rethink its participation in multilateral agreements and institutions, a course it has chosen in the past with devastating effect. But it could also entice the US back to its previous leadership roles in international environmental protection and in technological innovation.
‖Plit is a consultant at Edward Nathan, specialising in environmental law and sustainable development.
Perhaps we should implement tariffs against France, Germany, et.al. for not joining our efforts in Iraq. The cost of the war afterall, has an impact on our economy and gives them an economic edge on us. Take that back. Its a war for oil to fuel our economy, i'm an idiot!
...the very premise of the article is false...that the US is the leading 'carbon polluter'...I believe the mainland Chinese now hold that distinction...also a 'noon-ratifier' of Kyoto
"US, the world’s leading carbon polluter"
I would like to see proof of this. With Western Europe and China out there, I doubt this seriously.
Kyota exempts China and India. I would think if we were sued we would have the right to implead China and India and demand they comply too. Since they won't we wont have to either.
...'non-ratifier'
End of list.
Sure they can. When have they ever balked at a lie? Frankly, I don't think they even realize they are lying when they do it, anymore. Whatever suits the "progressive" agenda is the truth. Whatever doesn't, isn't.
This is merely wishful thinking by an African environmental activist posing as a "reporter", and is not grounded in any actual or likely occurrence.
Sanctions on us? By whom? As the worlds largest consumer, I wonder which of the countries doing business with us this moron thinks will cut their own financial throat in order to make a point and satisfy some loony tree hugger?
The author of this article is a first class fool, and totally brain dead in the area of trade and economics.
Yeah "sustainable development" is a tipoff, as is the word "optimal." You show me a world of six billion souls and I'll show you six billion different definitions of "optimal." These ecotards are arrogance personified. They are born knowing the "optimal" way of doing absolutely everything, although in real life all they have managed to actually do is blather off a bunch of buzzwords. I'll just continue to buy my electricity from the utility companies, my gasoline from the oil companies, and my cars from the automobile manufacturers, etc., thank you very much. It's not like any of this globalony is going to heat my bathwater or cool my beer.
That right there let me know I didn't need to read any further.
This is precisely why I objected to the WTO in the first place.
The destruction of the WTO and a general trade war with Europe won't help anyone.
As long as nations want to trade with us, we have the upper hand. If the WTO tries to force us into Kyoto, we could give the WTO the heave-ho and form our own trade agreements with other nations. Those nations whose economies consists of making things to sell at Wal-Mart, or whose people depend upon our grain surplus will have an easy choice.
If the Chinese dont support as at the WTO, do they really think we are going to pay off the Fed reserve debt they own. Mexico would pump oil for us like it was going out of style because if we didnt trade with them they would go under as would much of South America.
the world’s leading carbon polluter...
Carbon is not a pollutant. Carbon does not contribute to elevated global temperatures...carbon dioxide does (but carbon dioxide is not a "pollutant" either).
The use of the term "carbon" instead of "carbon dioxide" betrays the author's real agenda...to her its not important what comes out of the furnace, rather what's important to her is what goes into the furnace.
IOW - lets reduce productvity no matter how many pollution controls you've enabled or no matter how many trees you've planted (if trees are included, the United States is a net consumer of carbon dioxide).
Multilateral agreements and institutions with foreign countries regarding trade, etc..any agreement that places a foreign org. in any "power" over this country or its citizens is UNCONSTITUTIONAL anyway.
I suggest we DO rethink our involvement. If these countries want free trade...we should GIVE it to them on OUR terms..they will be free to accept them..or not.
I say they'll accept whatever crumbs we decide to throw their way..most in the WTO would still gathering nuts and berries and wearing animal skins if not for the USA....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.