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: zonder who wrote (61125)	12/11/2002 3:27:54 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Somebody tell Bill You can google it either way. Here is a recent story. US rejects possibility of signing Kyoto protocol October 25 2002 The United States has firmly rejected signing the Kyoto protocol on global warming, saying the damage the treaty would cause to its economy would also hurt developing countries. "It will have the impact of doing significant harm to our economy. We will not sign an agreement just to say that we signed it," Harlan Watson, the senior US climate change negotiator, said on the sidelines of a UN conference in India on global warming yesterda. "There is a very tight linkage between growth in the developed world and the developing world. Every time the US economy is depressed, our imports are also depressed," Watson told reporters. Under the 1997 Kyoto agreement, rich industrialised countries would be committed to reduce emissions of six greenhouse gases by a timeframe of 2008-2012. Kyoto is likely to go into effect next year if it is ratified by Russia. The treaty needs to be signed by countries that accounted for 55 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions in 1990. US President George W Bush, who leads the world's largest polluter, walked away from the pact after he took office last year, sparking widespread criticism. smh.com.au Here is the other version United States Signs Kyoto Protocol On November 12, Peter Burleigh, the acting U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, signed the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Before that date, every major developed nation had signed the treaty except the United States. The signing is seen as a purely symbolic gesture on the part of the White House due to widespread opposition of the protocol in Congress and ratification of the treaty by the Senate, as it stands now, is seen as a pipe dream. aaas.org

To: zonder who wrote (61125)	12/11/2002 4:20:33 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Treaties are not binding on the US until ratified by two thirds of the Senate. So sayeth Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution. Section 2. The President . . . . shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; law.cornell.edu So regardless of whether the President signed the Kyoto treaty (which Clinton did not), it isn't binding on the US because it wasn't ratified by the Senate. But it never got presented to the Senate because Clinton didn't sign it and Bush said he wouldn't sign it. I fear that the fine points of US law are lost upon you but present it anyway because hope springs eternal.