SI
SI
discoversearch

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: greenspirit who wrote (70572)1/31/2003 12:45:52 PM
From: JohnM  Respond to of 281500
 
Well, I had hoped to avoid this, Michael. But it does look as if we will have to agree to disagree. I see it as a negotiating ploy; you see it as a vote against any sort of Kyoto treaty.

As for my own views on the two points in that senate document, I thought both were good points but would need to have been modified in negotiations. The point about developing countries was accurate but its specific wording and implementation would need to take account of the varieties of development processes underway. Perhaps it could have been used to put pressure for cleaner technologies when choices were available. On the second point, the US economy, I considered that almost purely political. As stated, who could object. But specific environmental rules and regulations have vastly different economic effects. Some both help the environment and help economic growth; some are fairly zero sum (as opponents wish to cast all of them); and some are intricate mixes depending on implementation, which itself can be almost infinitely complex.

As for Clinton not working on Kyoto, we could have a helluva an argument as to why that didn't occur. But we definitely shouldn't here.

I seem to recall a domestic issue (Clinton's affair) which the Republicans considered an impeachment scale issue. And some of you guys criticize the dems now for partisanship. My take is the dems aren't even into that game yet.