For what it is worth, this is my response to Romney's comments about Global Warming and China (cut and paste from the article): Finally, if his stance on what he was going to do about climate change wasn't clear already, he shirks all responsibility by trying to compare the responsibilities of developing and developed countries. This goes without saying but countries that are developed in the year 2012 are developed because of all the fossil fuel emissions they have burned since the industrial revolution back in the 18th and 19th centuries. Developed countries are the primary reason the earth is warming, and while developing countries should also attempt to build an economy that is sustainable, developed countries must lead the way, both because they are morally obligated to and because they are economically capable to do so.
Yes I read you response, and while I think its well reasoned, there is no reason when it comes to diplomacy; there is only the present. A moral obligation will be used as reasoning for pursuing this or that policy when politicians are recording soundbites, but it is never the actual reason. The actual reason is always economic or militarily strategic (which is really just a proxy for economic anyway). The fact that the West is most responsible for the current state of the climate has no bearing on the future state, insofar as it pertains to policy. All diplomats want is the best deal for their own country. This may not be just, but it is reality. Therefore, we better damn well find a way to work together. We have grown our economy on greenhouse gas emissions, but there is no reason Brazil, India and China can't grow theirs in some sustainable way. In fact, starting from where they are, they could easily be better positioned than us in the next several decades, since they won't have to do as much dismantling.
I think you are right. Romney's response was largely for economic and military strategic reasons. I think his response was also motivated by the fact many of his biggest donors have a vested interested in keeping the status quo (e.g., big oil). However, Obama seems to accept the reality of Global Warming and the facts do support his claim that he has invested more than any other president in green energy. So maybe America can lead the way and set a moral as well as a economic example for developing countries to emulate.
Romney's point seems to be justified when he says: If US policy inhibits cost competitiveness within the US to manufacture, then why wouldn't manufacturers go elsewhere to produce their wares? They'd likely do so in an even more caustic way than if they'd continued to manufacture in the US under our current guidelines. Therefore making "environmentalists feel better, but not being any better for the environment". I think he has a point here.In this context, the primary effect of unilateral action by the U.S. to impose costs on its own emissions will be to shift industrial activity overseas to nations whose industrial processes are more emissions-intensive and less environmentally friendly. That result may make environmentalists feel better, but it will not better the environment.