"@Manwe Sullino, you said "So, it all boils down to whether our health and safety is in danger because of CO2 emissions or not, that's really all there is to it."
Thank you for your comprehensive reply. It is very interesting, and i respect that.
However we clearly come from a very different perspective. You seem to believe that the US *should* act in ways which comform to some ideology (protecting her citizens).
Whereas, i believe that we should expect the US to act in the *national interest*.
Now it is entirely possible that my understanding of national interest is flawed, and that your globalised trade and comparative advantage is valid. But i don't think the power structures in the US want China advancing to become technologically superior. It may be a matter of pride, or security, or some combination of these. And i may be naive in saying this, but i don't believe the US will allow this to happen. Nor that they *should*. (Though my should is very different from yours - i am claimed the US as a power structure *should* act to preserve it's own power, because that is how power structures behave...)
And your arguement about comparative advantage ignores the grander strategic aspects of our global economy. The OPEC countries don't care about your theory/description of "how production of goods and services works". In their self-interest they act as monopolies. China will not care either, they have longer-term thinking (though a poor culture for strategy, apparently... ). China will act in its own interest, that may mean restricting the flow of raw resources to Japan/SK when China decides it is time to bring manufacturing internal and only ship more expensive processed parts to Japan/SK.
They will manipulate their currency, so they have an comparative advantage where none would exist with a freely floating currency. They will do whatever it takes. And i believe the US will do the same - just with a different culture of planning and strategy affecting the decision making..."
Yeah, no problem. I actually work in Finance, and I specialize in the energy sector, so these are topics I am very familiar with. I'll try to address the new concerns you have brought up in order.
We probably do have differing opinions on how the U.S. federal government should operate. I identify as a libertarian. Contrary to popular belief though, that does not mean I don't want the government to do anything and just sit there, what I want is for the government to create all of its laws, policies, regulations, etc. in compliance with the Non-Agression Principle. If something violates the NAP, we can't pass it. If it is in compliance with the NAP, then we do a cost-benefit analysis to see if it should be implemented. Why is this? Because if something violates the NAP it violates human rights in my opinion. You seem to have the opinion the government should operate in what is in the best interest of the most people, a utilitarian approach, if I understand correctly. That is what is the popular belief among the public in general, the two sides (Republicans and Democrats) just disagree with what is in the best interest of the people.
In terms of China becoming technologically superior in renewable energy, you mention pride and security as areas of concern if this should happen. I can completely understand the pride side of it. Persoanlly, I don't care about being number 1 i everything, but I know that some people do and if they are one upped by China their pride could be hurt and this could then be a reason for attempting to beat China in renewable technology superiority that I didn't think of previously. Falling behind would in no way endanger our security, however. We need energy for three main things, electricity, heating, and fuel. We are completely independant in terms of electricity and heating, our coal and natural gas reserves are unmatched by anyone and could last us more than long enough for us to develop renewable technology in the event we needed to for some reason. For fuel we use oil to manufacture gasoline. We are almost self sufficient in oil production, the only country we might need to trade with to get enough oil for our consumption is Canada. So, security is not a concern for the foreseeable future.
Other countries actually care about comparative advantage as a reason for trade just as much as we do because producing what you are specialized in causes you to be as wealthy as you can be in terms of consumption. This is why OPEC makes oil, historically they have been the best at it. This is why Russia makes nuclear equipment, they are the best at it. This is why countries near the equator decide to focus on growing bananas, they are the best at it. It is in a country's own self-interest to specialize in what it has the comparative advantage in doing otherwise harms themselves. Currency manipulation, export/imports quotas and subsidies, tariffs, all of those things are designed to aid a small group of moving at the expense of a larger group of people while at the same time violating the NAP, so I think we both would agree that all of those things are bad. But they are not a reason to stop trading alltogether and to try to become compeletely independant in every good/service imaginable. It would be like finding a mansion on sale for $50,000 and passing it up because the door to one of the 3 kitchens had an ugly looking crack in it. Just fix the door. That's what the World Trade Organization is supposed to do, it limits the amount of corrupting influence governments can exert on the trade of their citizens, though it isn't perfect and hasn't solved every issue yet.,