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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (28329)	5/4/2002 3:25:01 PM
From: FaultLine	Respond to of 281500

Thanks for your comments John. I should have mentioned that I've only covered the first 1/3 of the article in that post. Later, Schelling goes on to develop some very interesting ideas about international cooperation using the Marshal Plan, NATO, and the WTO as examples. He discusses the fallacies inherent in the selling and buying of emissions credits concept. He then wraps it up with some recommendations for action. You may have already noticed he is careful to distinguish between commitments to actions and commitments to results. More about this later in the piece. --ken/fl

To: JohnM who wrote (28329)	6/8/2002 12:59:36 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

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