The United States is noted as one of the two nations besides Australia to refuse to ratify the present Kyoto Protocol which will expire in 2012 as part of the initiative to combat global warming.
The media states that the main reason they provide is that it will severely affect their national economy. Days before the start of the just-concluded G8 summit in Germany, the U.S totally opposed to the proposal brought by Germany and the other group members. A leaked document to the press revealed that the Bush administration that the commented notes on the document, marked in red ink revealed that the administration wants to have some of the lines in the proposal to be scrapped off - it was marked as 'serious fundamental concerns' and the most important red mark of the communique: 'the treatment runs counter to our overall position and crosses multiple red lines of terms that we simply cannot agree on.'
Their opposition of the protocol was based on the rule set proposed by Germany:
1) Average temperature rise for this century per year is limited to 2 degrees Celcius.
2) Cut of global emissions by half below the 1990 levels by 2050.
3) Rise in energy efficiency of 20 percent by 2020.
Greenpeace director John Sauven described the US position as criminal. He remarked the U.S as 'ignoring the global scientific consensus and concern of climate change in the country'.
With the facts supported in the book Failed States:
The opposition of the proposal was merely because of their position as the number one superpower in the world, the richest nation in the world and indirectly maintaining their hegemony - or world domination. The Bush administration totally opposes to the protocol which contrasts to the people's opinion that says yes to the protocol. There was a hindsight by the Republicans - right wingers- that the president will support the protocol, alas it is not.
Various analysis of the 2004 elections were conducted and it was discovered that the majority of voters are deluded or having little understanding of the candidates / parties stands. It was deliberately done so by certain groups as sow various contrasting opinions instead of having a single unilateral answer that could possibly used as a propaganda weapon against their own government. Most voters who picked Bush were convinced that he shared the same views as them, however the right-wing Republican party explicitly rejected them as in the case of the Kyoto protocols. What is interesting about this though is that the thing above rang true in the Kerry camp - Kerry hardly responds to concerns of his constituency, international or domestic issues!
Condo Rice's conclusion statement that the World Court jurisdiction is ineffective against them and the U.S not binded to international laws and norms indirectly reflects the opposition to the matter. Bush insists that the U.S has their own methods of combating the global warming, but the fear is that either it ends with empty promises, their methods is ineffective or perhaps other problems that might come out of the opposition. It is this small party that rejects the big consensus by bi-partisans. This small group mostly makes decisions from the elite political culture.
The US citizens actually say yes and agreed that the government should accept international jurisdictions and sign the protocol, allowing the U.N, the world body to take charge of international crises, using diplomatic and economic measures rather than using military might as the U.S does. The opposition to the ICC has elicited ridicules aboard ever since the use of the Holland Invasion Act where the president directly intervenes a World Court case in The Hague.
The accurate metaphor that the world presents to the U.S is literally "They present solutions, I don't like them thing." Sadly those solutions proposed represent the radical opposition to the U.S public policy. It will be in the matter of a two to three years time where the U.S economy faces a period cycle of collapse where they might be coming to other nations begging to her knees that they will start facing the consequences of vanity, arrogance and ignorance.
The media states that the main reason they provide is that it will severely affect their national economy. Days before the start of the just-concluded G8 summit in Germany, the U.S totally opposed to the proposal brought by Germany and the other group members. A leaked document to the press revealed that the Bush administration that the commented notes on the document, marked in red ink revealed that the administration wants to have some of the lines in the proposal to be scrapped off - it was marked as 'serious fundamental concerns' and the most important red mark of the communique: 'the treatment runs counter to our overall position and crosses multiple red lines of terms that we simply cannot agree on.'
Their opposition of the protocol was based on the rule set proposed by Germany:
1) Average temperature rise for this century per year is limited to 2 degrees Celcius.
2) Cut of global emissions by half below the 1990 levels by 2050.
3) Rise in energy efficiency of 20 percent by 2020.
Greenpeace director John Sauven described the US position as criminal. He remarked the U.S as 'ignoring the global scientific consensus and concern of climate change in the country'.
With the facts supported in the book Failed States:
The opposition of the proposal was merely because of their position as the number one superpower in the world, the richest nation in the world and indirectly maintaining their hegemony - or world domination. The Bush administration totally opposes to the protocol which contrasts to the people's opinion that says yes to the protocol. There was a hindsight by the Republicans - right wingers- that the president will support the protocol, alas it is not.
Various analysis of the 2004 elections were conducted and it was discovered that the majority of voters are deluded or having little understanding of the candidates / parties stands. It was deliberately done so by certain groups as sow various contrasting opinions instead of having a single unilateral answer that could possibly used as a propaganda weapon against their own government. Most voters who picked Bush were convinced that he shared the same views as them, however the right-wing Republican party explicitly rejected them as in the case of the Kyoto protocols. What is interesting about this though is that the thing above rang true in the Kerry camp - Kerry hardly responds to concerns of his constituency, international or domestic issues!
Condo Rice's conclusion statement that the World Court jurisdiction is ineffective against them and the U.S not binded to international laws and norms indirectly reflects the opposition to the matter. Bush insists that the U.S has their own methods of combating the global warming, but the fear is that either it ends with empty promises, their methods is ineffective or perhaps other problems that might come out of the opposition. It is this small party that rejects the big consensus by bi-partisans. This small group mostly makes decisions from the elite political culture.
The US citizens actually say yes and agreed that the government should accept international jurisdictions and sign the protocol, allowing the U.N, the world body to take charge of international crises, using diplomatic and economic measures rather than using military might as the U.S does. The opposition to the ICC has elicited ridicules aboard ever since the use of the Holland Invasion Act where the president directly intervenes a World Court case in The Hague.
The accurate metaphor that the world presents to the U.S is literally "They present solutions, I don't like them thing." Sadly those solutions proposed represent the radical opposition to the U.S public policy. It will be in the matter of a two to three years time where the U.S economy faces a period cycle of collapse where they might be coming to other nations begging to her knees that they will start facing the consequences of vanity, arrogance and ignorance.
Condo Rice slapped around by Logan/James Howlett/Wolverine in Daniel Way's "Wolverine: Origins". How's that for a little righteous indignation and payback? The US is above international law - sure, but not above the Canucklehead's Law! :)
ReplyDelete