bush visit to europe met with protests..question to bush supporters..

Clever individuals who want solutions can do better research than I've seen in the last
two Kyoto Treaty threads. But let's debate the opposing platforms instead, yeah they we
can be lazy and just drop in some platform links and joust about arguing who has a better
source.

Man, that's pretty harsh. I agree that most of us (including me) do pretty shoddy research on this bbs. But it's not because we're not interesting in the truth. It's just that most of us would rather not do more than a casual search for something that's really a leisure activity. If I've studied an issue for other purposes... that's different. I suspect that's true with most people here.

------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

 

I don't think public opinion should be mentioned at all because there are many times when the public is wrong, conflicted or says things they don't mean.

For an example: I've seen polls that show Americans would like to infringe Freedom of Speech in some cases. Should Congress and the Supreme Court bend to the will of the people? Of course not. A majority of people believe that nuclear power plants are unsafe. That is really not the case (even France uses them. They can even reuse the waste somehow. It's really kind of cool). And I might maintain that even though a majority of Americans support the death penalty, it's still wrong and we shouldn't have it. (And I heard Bianca Jagger say last night that when France got rid of the death penalty, about 60% of French people supported the death penalty still).

A poll I saw yesterday noted that 56% of Americans think it is okay for the government to read the email of criminals or suspected criminals. In the same poll, 62% of Americans said there should be more privacy laws to protect email from surveillance. (So they want both more and less privacy).

We also have people who answer poll questions with what they think the interviewer wants to hear or what they think should be the "right" answer. For example, if a pollster calls me up and asks how often I eat green vegetables, I (and many others) are going to answer with a number that is higher than what we actually do eat. By the same token, people answer poll questions saying they want conservation to be the focal point of a national energy policy, yet these same people continue to buy SUVs and often shun public transportation. They don't personally want to conserve, but answering the question any other way would make some people feel like they're selfish, etc.

So, I suppose I agree with the point (and would add to it). It is silly when people only use polls to point out where people agree with them (and ignore polls that say opposite). I would say that it's important to shun all polls. Leaders are supposed to lead. Sometimes they have to do things that aren't popular but are for the good of the country (I'm not speaking about any specific politician here. I'm talking about leadership in general). We elect them to do the job and to make the decisions. We don't elect them to follow our every whim. If the government did everything polls told them to do, we'd often end up doing more damage to the country. It's the job of our leaders to lead the way, not to follow behind where the rest of us are going.

But that's just what I think.

------------------
Houston Sports Board
Film Dallas.com
AntiBud.com

 

Wasn't it Willy who said "It's the ENVIROMENT stupid"

no, even Willy said:

"It's the economy stupid"

The enviroment is important but alot more people care about the economy on a daily basis than the enviroment on a daily basis. Long term the evviroemnt is more important but most of us focuses most on the short term.

 

Haven, harsh is not the right word.

There is no truth with the Kyoto Treaty, unless you consider agreement to be a truth. You can read the Protocol and try to understand the economy. Maybe those are truths. There are no true right or wrongs, necessarily...only that it is right to find a solution...because both sides agree that action is required.

All I meant to say is it is easy to talk about how you disagree rather than try to agree. It is a different debate to try to agree. I like it better.

-------------------------

Here is another idea to agree on. So, Bush for whatever reason wants to delay acting on CO2 emissions. I can think of a few reasons why he would take that position, but they are not moral positions, so he should be able to negotiate.

Why not negotiate something outside of the Kyoto Protocol, rather than trying to change the Protocol. Can he say to Europe and Japan, guys this is going to hurt me back home, help me win on another front then.

quid pro quo

I don't think this Kyoto issue is incredibly important to Bush. Looking good in other International arenas could give him bigger political capital points back home and abroad. This can be a win-win situation for a clever President.

I really don't think the big energy industry takes a beating. Business likes no change, but the successful businesses win bigger market when their is change. The aggressive businesses can buy into energy service sector companies who are the big winners in upgrading plant to better efficiencies. So the gas emitters still win by owning the Energy Service companies that are outfitting plants with efficiencies.

Maybe they further win by Bush negotiating with Europe to pave the way for Enron and El Paso Energy to rule the commodity-driven fiber-optic highway they are building.

Maybe Bush is playing hardball to win on another arena

or maybe he is a puppet. who cares...let's talk the solutions for a change. no?

*sigh*

 

Heypartner:

Yeah, I read about Bush's planned initiative on CNN.com today.

What I think needs to be understood is that the sort of treaty that he's hinting at will never, ever be ratified. Why? Because Bush is specifically turning this into a dispute between China and the United States. The US is not going to sign unless China submits to be bound by the same regulations.

China, right now, is extremely interested in economic growth, and very uninterested in the environment. Bush is sounding noble, by saying he *wants* a climate accord... but he's just making a pretty darn safe bet that China will never agree to one. It's a lot like a father copping out, and telling their child "sure, I'll take you to Disneyworld tomorrow, if only you can get your mother to buy the plane tickets now."

It's disingenuous in the extreme. I don't think Bush has any intention of using the situation as bargaining leverage with the Democrats; he just doesn't want to sign the treaty, but doesn't want to look like a bad guy.

Bush, alas, is an extremely savvy politician . I think he's even better than Clinton, tactically, if not as personally charismatic.

I don't have a problem with striving for agreement. I do wonder if that's possible on this BBS. It seems easier to agree when 1. you actually are face-to-face with the other guy, and 2. you're working to make a concrete proposal. We don't do either one, here .

------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

 

haven,

I'm not talking about Bush having "any intention of using the situation as bargaining leverage with the Democrats"...I'm talking about Bush using this as Global leverage. One thing that comes to mind is leverage on negotiating fibre-optic private networks to trade as a commodity. This is what Enron and El Paso Energy are building. They will definitely lobby for gas emission upgrades if Bush can land them an agreement with France/England et al to give them better position in international private networks. Who knows?? I'm just tossing that out.

The China things sounds like Bush offering something that purposely won't be agreed upon as a simple manuever to achieve something else. Those types of offers are meant to find middle ground.

If we assume the Kyoto Treaty is non-negotiatiable, what might Bush be looking for....just a delay. Or is there something outside the Kyoto Treaty he wants from Europe or Japan.

uh' this is a matter of how many we can name, not whether they exist or not.

 

heypartner:

The China rhetoric is too dangerous to play with lightly, so I doubt it would be a bargaining chip. He's going to find a very large support base on the China thing. Do you know what Americans consistently poll as their #1 foreign policy concern? Losing jobs to foreigners. Playing the China-productivity-emissions card just plays right into this fear.

If he *is* using this as a bargaining chip with Europe... what happens when he cuses the leverage? China suddenly becomes no obstacle? Who is he going to look for support, then? Environment-minded people will see him as the guy who held global warming protocols hostage. The Protectionists will see him as the guy who sold them out.

It's possible that a conservative Democrat could swing that sort of deal. I can't think of anyone else who could. Bush would undermine too much of his political support in doing so, and would surrender his great trump card on the environment.

Add to that the rhetoric previously coming from the Bush camp, particularly his intimate advisor C. Rice on global warming, and there isn't a rosy picture of possible compromise.

He's doing one of two things: if you're right, he's taking the economic conservatives completely for granted, which would be a mistake given his own uncertain position in the next election. Or if I'm right, he's shoring up his base, and further distancing China from the US.

I'm guessing Bush is playing international realpolitik here. China has publicly stated that they wish to strengthen ties with Russia and Western Europe in order to lessen US influence. Bush is attempting to distance China and Europe, while saving himself the trouble of having to fight global warming studies on the merits. Let China battle it out with Western Europe, and Bush can stay high and dry. The US is even more essential to efforts to curb global warming than is China, hence, the Chinese could really have their hands full if they're percieved as the stumbling block.

I think it's a pretty good ploy, personally. I think he's mistaken, but as I said, he's a damned fine politician. Of course, this all could come back to bite him in the behind. It's going to sour relations with China further (if that's possible)... and there's always the off-chance that China will agree. Then he'd be forced to bite an agreement he doesn't want, or lose credibility internationally.
------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...


[This message has been edited by haven (edited June 12, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by haven (edited June 12, 2001).]

 

I had to stop reading your post when you said "bargaining chip".

It may not be a chip at all. It could be a political maneuver to deny signing the treaty in public. He meerly says in public, "China should be included", to sound plausible. Maybe he just needs to say something in public, if he has other concessions he is looking for outside the Treaty.

Can I say it one more time:

I don't think the Kyoto Protocol is negotiable without throwing it away

But, you can still negotiate for things outside the treaty.

Now I could be totally wrong here. China could be the major deadlock issue. The reason for that is because they are drilling like mad right now, and they are claiming all big oil fields in their vacinity. They have screwed at least one US company who funded exploration and stole the field from them claiming it as their natural resource.

We must understand, China is RIPE for being the biggest CO2 emitter on the globe rather quickly.

If Bush can negotiate China being covered by the Kyoto Treaty, at least sometime in 5 yrs, then I'm behind our President on this one. However, I seriously doubt China can be limited to any use of their resources....yeah right.

So, my suspicion is that Bush has no dilusions of changing the Treaty to include China.

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 12, 2001).]

 

Heypartner:

I know what you're saying. I understand that you think he wants non-Kyoto concessions. However, I think you're ignoring the political dimension of the issue. If Bush's sole consideration really was interaction with otherheads-of-state, then yes... what you say would make perfect sense.

But by using the rhetoric he's advancing with China, the logic follows as contained in my above post. You can't use rhetoric without paying for it later, if it's just a ploy. I'm saying that such a path would be extremely hazardous politically, for the reasons mentioned previously.

------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

[This message has been edited by haven (edited June 12, 2001).]

 

Haven,

He loses nothing if Europe and Japan can get China to say in public that they will not sign the Treaty under similar rules to the US. Then Bush can freely sign it and say, "If nothing else, we are going to make China look bad while getting other concessions."

So Haven, can we agree that China will not sign that. Let's assume that is true. If Bush knows that, then this becomes a public political maneuver to make him look good while getting the outside concession that I assume are there.

btw: I'm not really following how this has anything to do with Congress. It appears to be more a backdoor effort in lobbying the administration effort. If he signs it sometime, I don't see how he or any other congressmen are hurt by it, as long as Europe and Japan gave them something backdoor to save face. Public opinion will like it if he can make China look like they are the big evil gas emitter that won't cooperate.

 

Heypartner:

He loses nothing if Europe and Japan can get China to say in public that they will not sign
the Treaty under similar rules to the US. Then Bush can freely sign it and say, "If nothing
else, we are going to make China look bad while getting other concessions."

BUT Bush has publicly stated that he *will not* sign *any* protocol that does not fairly bind China concerning emissions. If he signs it after saying this, he alienates the Protectionist base that he's accumulating.

So Haven, can we agree that China will not sign that. Let's assume that is true. If Bush
knows that, then this becomes a public political maneuver to make him look good while
getting the outside concession that I assume are there.

But the domestic political ramifications still occur - he's still going to lose support from the people who oppose any accord that doesn't impose the same economic limitations upon large 3rd world counties, like China and India. He gave an ultimatum - if he's willing to sacrifice this for other concessions, then he betrays the support that he rallies by issuing the ultimatum.

btw: I'm not really following how this has anything to do with Congress. It appears to be
more a backdoor effort in lobbying the administration effort. If he signs it sometime, I
don't see how he or any other congressmen are hurt by it, as long as Europe and Japan
gave them something backdoor to save face. Public opinion will like it if he can make
China look like they are the big evil gas emitter that won't cooperate.

It has to deal with domestic politics, not specifically congress. Of course everyone will think China's a big evil polluter... but they'll also regard Bush as the guy who was soft on the big, evil polluter and sacrificed productivity by signing an unfair treaty.

Environmentalists will view him as a guy who holds int'l emissions standard hostage, and his own camp will view him as the guy who signed a treaty, against his own pledge, that didn't bind China.

He can't win, there. I think the only logical answer is to assume that he has no intention of ever signing, and is placing his trust in the fact that China never will.

------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

[This message has been edited by haven (edited June 12, 2001).]

 

You can certainly be correct about this. My stance is this makes no political sense. I view every Treaty that is negotiated in good faith to be an opportunity for the US President to gain things. I don't see him winning anything if he plans to walk away from this.

That is the one weakness in your argument: You don't say anything about what Bush gains if he walks away. I assume all he gets is nationalist political and corporate favors. If he indeed gets global favors on the side, what the hell are they. Arab riches! Conspiracy theories about alien taking over the globe. Not meaning to be facetious here, just that I am a negotiator at heart, and I must see what he gains as a US President if he walks away. National favors is not enough in my mind. A clever president can negotiate more for his lobbiers on a global scale, but he has to convince them to play ball.

 

Heypartner



You can certainly be correct about this. My stance is this makes no political sense. I view
every Treaty that is negotiated in good faith to be an opportunity for the US President to
gain things. I don't see him winning anything if he plans to walk away from this.

That is the one weakness in your argument: You don't say anything about what Bush
gains if he walks away. I assume all he gets is nationalist political and corporate favors. If
he indeed gets global favors on the side, what the hell are they. Arab riches! Conspiracy
theories about alien taking over the globe. Not meaning to be facetious here, just that I
am a negotiator at heart, and I must see what he gains as a US President if he walks
away. National favors is not enough in my mind. A clever president can negotiate more
for his lobbiers on a global scale, but he has to convince them to play ball.

I don't think Bush is much of a foreign policy expert. Remember the time the Globe journalist ambushed him by asking the names of 5 leaders in trouble spots, and that Bush didn't know a single one? Yes, he has good people advising him. But Americans really care about domestic politics first. Every year, Gallup issues a pole concerning priorities for Americans. Foreign policy has been steadily declining since the end of the Cold War. My guess is that Bush is approaching this from a domestic standpoint. Heck, look at the way he treats our European allies on the issue of NMD.

What does he gain if he walks away from the negotiating table? Why, he gets his primary objective... which is nothing. Bush opposes action on the grounds that it would be economically harmful. Any, action, therefore, can be perceived as bad action.

But that's a very hard-line to take, especially on the heels of the latest report from the scientific community. At the very least, moderate voters are going to be troubled by a President so eager to forget about the environment. I believe the President is more interested in his susceptibility to attacks on the issues of environmentalism than true worries about Chinese non-compliance.

By taking a hard-line stance on China, Bush is going to appease the moderates, rally conservative Protectionist support, and look like "at least he tried."

The key difference in our opinions is that you believe that Bush is operating in good faith. Given his past record, and the unlikliehood of China complying with his ultimatum, I can't believe that at this time.

You also have a more rational, economic focus... I'm focusing on the nightmare that is US domestic politics. I HOPE you're right. That would be best for everyone...

------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

 

Again...the cost of compliance with the Kyoto Protocol simply does not justify its benefits, even with the optimistic EPA projections of what would occur if the treaty were signed and all the nations performed as expected. We are responsible for 20% of the world's pollution...that means there is another 80% to deal with. China is the second worst polluter in the world...signing any treaty that puts us at a disadvantage (or puts China at an advantage) in the global marketplace is not in our best interests. Again...I'm not all convinced global warming is the monster you guys think it is. But I'm certainly willing to spend the money to find out. I'm just not ready to sacrifice our economy (and people's livelihoods) at the altar of an indefinite science.

------------------

 

MadMax,

The way you lower emission is to upgrade facilites.

That creates a new econonmy which the US is likely to dominate. Exxon will like buy major shares in the energy service companies that hase the largest market share, right now. They will get over a double or triple on the stock market when those service companies start getting awarded contract to make gas emitters more efficient.

The economy has way more variables to consider than any "think tank" paper on cost-benefit analysis out there.

This is like spending money on NASA. It WILL produce new economies. We will not be at a disadvantage to China. Especially if Bush is trying to get major concessions.

His objection to China is right on. But, there is NO WAY China will abide by that Treaty. That is a given, in my mind. So Bush could just be bluffing. He could negotiate with Europe and Japan to force them to upgrade facilities using US service companies. He could get exclusives.

Bush is in the driver's seat, and he could get a major win out of signing this treaty.

He could be negotiating outside deals to line everyone's pockets (US Companies) via the stock market.

I am willing to bet anyone here, that if this Treaty is signed by Bush, you will see about 10 US companies SOAR on the stock market. In fact, you all should start analyzing the Energy Service companies who are best prepared to win contract for upgrading gas emitters. I suggest looking for the service companies that currently have heavy stakes in them from the Exxons and Houston Industries, etc.

MadMax, broaden your variables, and you can see how the US can get a major economic win here. Go BUSH!!!!

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 13, 2001).]

 

I wish I shared your optimism about that...but I don't. It seems highly speculative to me...with the risks being huge. And it still doesn't address the fact that the impact of the treaty on reducing global warming is negligible.

------------------

 

rimmy,

#2 You misunderstand this. I am talking about the Energy Service companies...not he gas emitters. They damn sure want to win contracts for upgrading facilities, and they definitely have largest market share. This is key to my point that Bush and Cheney probably want to sign this Treaty. #2 here is about the US companies who are position to win contracts to refit the plants with better efficiencies.

#4 Does OPEC really operate that way? If demand goes down, prices go up?? Sounds like how they sell Rocket's Season Tickets. I could be wrong on this, as I don't really understand how OPEC works. I was just spouting out the Economic law of Price Elasticity.

I can strike #4 if you want. Can you find some OPEC history that breaks the rules of Price Elasticity? We still should be able to move forward without dwelling on #4.

Now remember rimmy, these weren't arguments. These were points that I hoped we can base some agreements on, in order to move forward on the discussion. The idea is to find agreements, like politicians would in negotiations.

My contention is that Bush can actually create a Win-Win by signing the Treaty. It just doesn't make sense not to approach this as a global economic opportunity where he's holding the Treaty hostage, but has plenty of Energy Service sector lobbyist who want him to sign it. I think it is too narrow-minded to consider that his lobbyist are just the Exxons, which is the purpose of my #2.

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 13, 2001).]

 

also rimmy, I agree that the gas emitters don't want to upgrade, but they can make money on it. It has been done via the Voucher system and the stockmarket.

Gas Emitter A invest $200m every year in the stock market. They lobby Bush to sign the Treaty only if he can make it more likely that Plant Service Company B stands to win most the contracts. Thus, they invest $200m in Plant Service Company B, upgrade their facilities and reap a double or triple in their investment.

It happens ALL the time.

 

#4 Does OPEC really operate that way? If demand goes down, prices go up?? Sounds like how they sell Rocket's Season Tickets. I could be wrong on this, as I don't really understand how OPEC works. I was just spouting out the Economic law of Price Elasticity.

Oftentimes, yes, that's how they work. If demand drops, they cut production even more, so that prices rise. This allows them to make similar profits on less oil sales. Neat, huh?


------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

 

Shanna, yeah psuedo monopolies, like the Rockets, have a way of cheating Price Elasticity.

Question, if they cheat their supply/demand variables to maintain the same profits, isn't that going to be in proportion to the savings achieved by the plants for using less oil?

So, I think it is safe to say that the "think tank" analysis shown by Beto in this thread is a scare tactic. Prices may go up, but the point I made in an early post was, the bottom-line costs vs revenues are what are botton-line to US companies, not prices.

Can someone go pull some info on the Voucher systems?