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: Dayuhan who wrote (19731)	7/30/2001 7:45:22 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The implementing measures of a treaty are also less likely to draw attention than the treaty itself. That's an important difference, I think. I was going to post it but figured it wouldn't do any good. Those opposed to the Kyoto treaty might be well advised to accept the treaty, give lip service to its goals, and sabotage its implementation. My complaint about the handling of Kyoto has never been that they don't want to sign it but the clumsy and divisive way it was handled. There was no advantage to drawing that much fire. It would have been easier and safer to drag it out until it was meaningless. Now they've made an issue of it. And they're on the hook for an alternative, which is surely not where they want to put their energy. So they've ended up pissing people and countries off, put themselves on the hook to do work for which they have no stomach and which they will probably not do, and been distracted from their agenda. If they weren't going to do anything about global climate change, they could have done it with less cost under the umbrella of Kyoto. Nothing to cheer about there, IMO. Karen