It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Kyoto sanctions vs US likely?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 07:27 PM
What's evetybodies feelings about the likelyhood of trade sanctions against the US for refusing to participate in Kyoto? Unfair trade practice charges can be brought against the US in the WTO now, right?

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:35 PM
Do I think they should? Probably, but I would like to see more effort made to get the US to ratify the agreement.

Fourteen other countries have signed the protocol but not ratified it. Of those six are Annex I countries:

Australia (not intending to ratify)
Switzerland - The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by the Senate but not yet by the House of Representatives.
United States -- (not intending to ratify)

Annex I countries account for at least 55 per cent of the total carbon dioxide emissions in 1990.

More can be found - here


posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 11:40 AM
I think it is very likely that Europe and company will seek sanctions. There are a couple reasons:

1. I think the world is very pissed about Iraq/unilateralism/pre-emption doctrine, and this would be the ideal way for the world to respond to our total disregard for the rest of the international community. In fact, if you read a lot on these issues, it is obvious that our refusal to even participate in the Kyoto process, as well as other international treaties, was a motivating factor for opposition to the US Iraq campaign.

2. Europe has sought sanctions before in the recent past, steel/etc. There is an article by Peter Fontaine in the Public Utilities Fortnightly (August I believe) that makes the case for this.

posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 07:09 PM
what authority do you think that Kyoto could bring against the US? Trade sanctions against the US is like a prisoner giving orders to his warden.

posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 11:58 PM
The Kyoto members can go to the WTO and impose sanctions due to the "competitive edge" gained by the US for remaining outside the international framework. Although it is not a lock that the WTO would uphold sanctions, history suggests that refusal to either: (1) engage in the international framework, or (2) take actions along a parallel track that are consistent with the actions of the international body, risks the WTO finding sanctions legitimate.

As for the question of US strength, while we are a critical component of the free trade regime, I'm not sure that we are the end-all, be-all in it. Europe's power certainly is on the rise, and I think American opposition to climate change policy has ticked off a large number of the world's leaders. While "counter-balancing" via military power isn't feasible, even by the Chinese, in the short-term, an economic counter-hegemony is certainly viable. Our dependency on international investment to check a total collapse of the dollar serves as evidence of this possibility.

top topics

log in