Political Crossfire Forums

[TeaCHeRaKiS]

Why should a country have an option to choose not to come to terms with the international treaties (Kyoto etc.)? Shouldn't it be obligatory to anyone? I mean at least among the developed countries. And the developing to be monitored?

I would like your views on the subject...

[poweRob]

TeaCHeRaKiS wrote: Why should a country have an option to choose not to come to terms with the international treaties (Kyoto etc.)? Shouldn't it be obligatory to anyone? I mean at least among the developed countries. And the developing to be monitored?

I would like your views on the subject...

If you don't sign a treaty, you don't have to own up to that treaty.

I'm SUPER GREEN GUY but by no means do I think that we should sacrifice our rights to govern ourselves to an international body. If we signed and didn't abide by it, we'd be fined. Our country would be having to answer to an international body. No thanks.

I wouldn't mind signing up for a technological swap with set goals to meet so long as meeting those goals weren't under the gun of interfering with the governence of ourselves. I'd rather see it be a race with a reward to the finishing leaders than a financial punishment to the ones behind.

Incentive should come in front of your eyes and not from fear of a baseball bat to the back of your knees.

[Rankor and Pissing]

poweRob wrote: TeaCHeRaKiS wrote: Why should a country have an option to choose not to come to terms with the international treaties (Kyoto etc.)? Shouldn't it be obligatory to anyone? I mean at least among the developed countries. And the developing to be monitored?

I would like your views on the subject...

If you don't sign a treaty, you don't have to own up to that treaty.

I'm SUPER GREEN GUY but by no means do I think that we should sacrifice our rights to govern ourselves to an international body. If we signed and didn't abide by it, we'd be fined. Our country would be having to answer to an international body. No thanks.

...

Incentive should come in front of your eyes and not from fear of a baseball bat to the back of your knees.

I'm in agreement and not green at all. If the accords would work through the American government to set those goals as poweRob described, I'd support signing up for it in a second. That's not the case. What's not understood is the American's answer to Americans - that's the way it was set up in the beginning and that's the way it has to be now.

[Demonic Spoon]

NO. That would mean the creation of a world government.

[TNBiologist]

poweRob wrote: TeaCHeRaKiS wrote: Why should a country have an option to choose not to come to terms with the international treaties (Kyoto etc.)? Shouldn't it be obligatory to anyone? I mean at least among the developed countries. And the developing to be monitored?

I would like your views on the subject...

If you don't sign a treaty, you don't have to own up to that treaty.

I'm SUPER GREEN GUY but by no means do I think that we should sacrifice our rights to govern ourselves to an international body. If we signed and didn't abide by it, we'd be fined. Our country would be having to answer to an international body. No thanks.

I wouldn't mind signing up for a technological swap with set goals to meet so long as meeting those goals weren't under the gun of interfering with the governence of ourselves. I'd rather see it be a race with a reward to the finishing leaders than a financial punishment to the ones behind.

Incentive should come in front of your eyes and not from fear of a baseball bat to the back of your knees.

Got to agree, no country should give up any of its self governing rights to any international body. Use incentives not punishments to get developed countries to cooperate. You also have to look at undeveloped/developing countries, they will be fast to point out that the developed countries got to that point without any emission restrictions so why should they not do the same thing. It would take a rewards system for technology or trade incentives to get this done.

[perdidochas]

TeaCHeRaKiS wrote: Why should a country have an option to choose not to come to terms with the international treaties (Kyoto etc.)? Shouldn't it be obligatory to anyone? I mean at least among the developed countries. And the developing to be monitored?

I would like your views on the subject...

Treaties are not one way. A treaty, to be in force, has to be approved by all nations involved. We chose not to approve the treaty, therefore, we can do whatever we like.

[John Galt]

No, that is a terrifing idea.

All international "enviornmentalist" treaties erode soviergnty. This much is fact. Since ultimate power is supposed to rest with the people in this country, that would be giving up your soverignty to someone whom you cannot control. At all.

Now, the question is -- is the motive behind this to save the erosion of soil into the sea or to facitilitate the erosion of power into the so-called "international" government of the UN?

They have an army you know, seperate from the peacekeepers, which has already been used offensivley in Angola, among other places. What about if they need to secure an area in, say, the Chicago "Bioshphere," which on paper they have control over development (development of roads, of subways, of housing, etc, etc)? (Thanks Jimmy Carter!)

Like I said -- terrifying.

[connermt]

A developing country (such as the US) should do everything they can to help cut/reduce emissions & pollutants from their cars & industry & agriculture W/O giving up any self gov'rning practices. The 'old ways' & 'old ways of thinking' that the US seems to continuously grasp at no longer have any relevance in today's world. The gov't needs to think outside the box & start spending their $ better on better programs that not only betters the US, but the planet as well.