Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (18603)	7/18/2001 12:35:40 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

You have something of a point, but we didn't have any real commitment to Kyoto nothing had been ratified by the US Senate (and I believe only one country has ratified the treaty). Without a treaty commitment all we have is the personal commitment of an ex president. Such commitments are not binding in any way on the new administration. Perhaps your right that he could have been more diplomatic in how he went about this considering the fact that the Europeans consider it important, but absent that commitment how we regulate emissions is basically a US internal policy. Should a US president get all upset in public if France changes how they regulate cheese or Germany decides to cut their work week without consulting with the US first and getting our approval? In fact assuming Bush and the Europeans agree that there should be some form of regulation in this area it is best to face reality that the Kyoto treat was dead. It went down 98 to 0 in the US Senate. Which amounted to a very public rejection of the treaty. Bush was just facing that reality. Tim