Re: US policy Was Re: [asa] Subglacial Water System Moving

*then the U.S.
could simply say because sovereignty is our ultimate interest we will
run our own carbon market with deeper cuts than we would have with in
a linked market.*
**
I don't know if sovereignty is the overriding interest in the real political
economy of this. Probably not -- more likely it's oil money. But
sovereignty is my overriding concern about Kyoto, and I think it's the
biggest concern on a serious policy level.

There are at least a couple of reasons de-linking the US won't work. One is
economic: since the US is one of the few major polluters, taking the US out
will distort the global market such that there would be no functioning
global market. Another is political: why would other reluctant players
such as China agree to give up sovereignty if the US isn't willing to do
so? It's a prisoner's dilemma.

I haven't looked into this, but I wonder if there is a way to facilitate an
emissions market through GATT. The sovereignty concern regarding Kyoto is
particularly important, IMHO, because Kyoto is a United Nations
Convention. The UN has done lots of good in the world and it (or something
like it) is a necessary organization. (Too bad the US invaded Iraq rather
than waiting for UN sanctions to work). But, there's no denying that the UN
is not always friendly to free markets and democratic self-governance, and
that too much power in the UN is vested in totalitarian nations (e.g.,
China). GATT, in contrast, IMHO, is a forum that has worked reasonably well
because it is inherently pro-market and has a more limited mandate.

On 2/23/07, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 22, 2007, at 3:34 PM, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> >
> > A full-on implementation of Kyoto would make the EU
> > decentralization problem look like child's play -- unless there
> > were a central authority of sufficient strength to regulate both
> > demand and supply of credits. I think the prospect of ceding
> > national sovereignty to such a central authority is the heart of
> > the issue concerning Kyoto or a Kyoto-like regime. If you want to
> > propose a global cap and trade program, you have to be able to
> > answer this question of sovereignty. IMHO, it's awfully difficult
> > to argue that the precautionary principle as applied to the current
> > science on global warming justifies devolving sovereignty to an
> > unelected international body comprised of countries like China,
> > Russia, and France.
> >
>
> As the SO2 results show the U.S. is big enough for its own market.
> So, if the real concern is national sovereignty -- which I really
> doubt but let's assume I am just being cynical -- then the U.S.
> could simply say because sovereignty is our ultimate interest we will
> run our own carbon market with deeper cuts than we would have with in
> a linked market. I'm sure no one will object. Problem solved.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 23 09:54:07 2007