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.
Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Randy Ellingson who wrote (153761)2/27/2003 8:26:05 PM
From: Bill Harmond  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 164684
 
Randy. I agree, but the US does lead the world in environmental reform. That's why I asked to see the Chinese Clean Air Act.

This greenhouse gas thing is way overblown, IMO. Mankind creates 4% of CO2, Nature 96%. Look at the lead the US has taken in banning flouorinated hydrocarbons.

Also, I don't have a problem with a treaty that doles out the pain proportionately, but this one doesn't. It boils down to the US subsidizing other countries' industry.



To: Randy Ellingson who wrote (153761)2/27/2003 8:27:51 PM
From: Oeconomicus  Respond to of 164684
 
Randy, being "green" doesn't require one to be a "liberal", but being green at the expense of the competitive position of US industries, which are already at a competitive disadvantage is many ways as reflected by our trade balance, is something beyond liberal. Yes, the US should be a leading force in keeping the planet clean, but that doesn't mean we should sign on to whatever treaty the rest of the world wants to cram down our throats.

Bob


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News