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 (19293)	7/25/2001 8:07:45 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The NYTimes usually gets it wrong. But they have an agenda to pursue. FoxNews reported last night that the NYTimes, unlike the LATimes and WP, refused to report that because of Bush's leadership Japan secured provisions that made Kyoto essentially meaningless. Japan secured the inclusion of emission "sinks" and emissions "trading" that the Clinton team lead by AlGore failed to achieve. But most markedly, the liberal NYTimes refused to report the most important concession made to Japan because of Bush's leadership: that penalties contained in Kyoto are not legally binding on signatories. Get that? In other words, the US in essence prevailed and Kyoto only exists on paper as a face-saving measure for the European Socialists who depend on "Green" party support to cling to power. ....After the failure in The Hague, EU delegates offered many more concessions in this round in order to clinch a deal. The final compromise was struck when Japan was satisfied that penalties against countries that fail to meet the Kyoto targets would not be legally binding. washingtonpost.com ....Even after the protracted haggling, delegates couldn't say exactly why the deal was so contentious. Japan held out the longest, until the word "binding" was removed from a section calling for financial penalties for those failing to meet reduction targets.... latimes.com. No such mention of that most important point was to be found in the parochial NYTimes. In fact, the NYTimes appears, through devious editing, to make a Kyoto defeat appear to be a victory: The biggest sticking point was how much to penalize countries that miss their targets. Japan held out for a fairly painless system. Europe wanted countries that missed targets in the first commitment period, from 2008 to 2012, to pledge to reduce more carbon dioxide in the next period, with the equivalent of penalties plus interest. On that point, Europe got its way. nytimes.com So in other words, what the NYTimes doesn't say, w/ financial penalties removed, the only sanction is a call for more reductions. Toothless and a defeat for the Europeans on substance. But not really, since the cynical Europeans are interested in form only. They have the crazies to appease.

To: Lane3 who wrote (19293)	7/25/2001 8:24:13 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 82486

>>I've mentioned that the basis for the Kyoto Protocol was established with the active participation of pappy Bush You really think so? I'll bet pappy had no active participation at all.

To: Lane3 who wrote (19293)	7/25/2001 1:50:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

At least twice, when we've been discussing global climate change, I've mentioned that the basis for the Kyoto Protocol was established with the active participation of pappy Bush but you never reacted to that tidbit and I don't know if the point got across. You did get the point across, I just had no response. Pushing myself to get one now I would say that this fact would not bind GW any more then if Clinton, or Reagan, or Carter had made the inital commitment. If there is a ratified treaty then the US has made a commitment. Otherwise the commitment is only the personal commitment of the current president, who does not have the authority to bind future presidents to his commitment. Tim