In your nitpicking deconstructionism of that piece, you may have missed the crucial part:
And the closer you look, you see why. At Kyoto, then Vice-President Al Gore agreed to
reduce carbon emissions in the United States by 7 percent from their 1990 levels by
20012. Very little so far has been done to achieve that, a period of inertia that applies
to the industrialized European countries who have also failed to ratify the treaty. But
because economic growth in the United States has far out-stripped growth in Europe
in the last decade, carbon dioxide emission levels have also soared beyond the
European average. On current trends, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2012 will be
some 34 percent higher than in 1990. That means that President Bush and the U.S.
Congress would be required under the Kyoto accord to reduce such emissions by
over 40 percent in a decade. Apart from locking half the countries' cars in the garage
for the next ten years and instructing Americans to stop breathing, it's hard to see how
that could possibly be done – without massive economic damage. Bush's position, in
other words, is not the result of some crazed Texas oil man wanting to foul up the
planet, but the simple recognition of reality.
The Euros, who were so critical of Bush for repudiating the treaty, have not only not reduced their CO2 emissions, they have increased them. Just like the US. The only difference is that the US has been lucky enough to experience a period of extraordinary economic growth. They also have not ratified the treaty- -just like the US. If they believe it to be such a blessing, why not? I think your fixation on my "American Empire" phrase is getting in the way of recognition of reality.
That last paragraph was essentially a "you're one too" argument- -an ad hominem attack. Let's go past that to reality. If Kyoto means destroying the US economy- -which it apparently does- -it will continue to be ignored and will never be ratified. It is a punitive treaty aimed at the industrialized west and justly deserves the death it will receive.
I would suggest you move on; Kyoto has no future. |
