SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: JohnM who wrote (70420)1/31/2003 12:16:24 AM
From: greenspirit  Read Replies (2) of 281500
 
hmmm. Ok.

1. The science is still uncertain. The problem may not exist. Further study is needed.

2. The treaty is unfair. It would force the United States and other developed countries to make deep emissions cuts, but, would exempt many developing countries such as India and China. This could result in products that use energy-intensive manufacturing processes, such as steel, paper, automobiles and chemicals to move overseas.

3. It's too costly to America consumers. It would raise gas prices, and electrical rates. Some predictions are pretty dramatic.

Because of these reasons, not one United States Senator from either side of the aisle voted to ratify the treaty. On the contrary, they voted 95-0 to oppose the treaty. Therefore, it's not just folks from the "further right" of American politics who oppose the treaty, it's folks from all sides of the political spectrum.

As I asked previously, how do you come to terms with a 95-0 vote in the Senate, representing only the further right?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News