Belated comment on a Schelling comment...
The Clinton administration did not put it before the Senate for ratification. Strange. Three possible explanations and it's quite possible all are correct.
Yes, all three are correct, I think--which makes it not so strange.
Schelling makes the point that the Kyoto Protocol (as he calls it) "should not be a partisan issue." One, of course, has to agree, but environmental issues are, unfortunately, highly politicized. And I'm certain Schelling is more than aware of that. So why the comment?
Because policy wonks are different from politicos. The former recognize that partisanship is a fact of life, but they generally consider it unfortunate, and generally have contempt for the political bozos (on all sides) who turn everything, even eminently resolvable issues, into a childish food fight. What Schelling is saying is that most of the so-called "discussion" about global warming that takes place in the political realm is BS, because people with brains should be able to agree that climate change is real, partly human-caused, and needs to be dealt with, and that the Kyoto Protocol as negotiated was, is, and will continue to be a non-starter. So, he's saying, let's get beyond all that and move on to the real questions, which is what should replace it.
tb@technocrat.com |
