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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (77593)	6/24/2006 1:18:08 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

And when we're dealing with systems that are only partly understood, but where the consequences of inaction might be catastrophic, it seems like erring on the side of caution is the prudent thing to do. Which was the whole idea behind the Kyoto Protocols. In any such analysis, you have to do a cost-benefits analysis. What change is coming, with what certainty and what effects? When you look hard at what is known, the chance of 'catastrophic' change doesn't seem so great at all. If the temperature goes up one or two degrees in a century, the oceans will rise some some but agriculture will improve in most places. Perhaps it would be more cost-effective to adapt to the changes? Anyway, Kyoto threw most of the costs on the US, while ignoring China and India completely, so that even if it functioned as designed it would do very little besides costing the US billions. That's why the treaty was DOA in the Senate. The European pols just used it for political cover. They're not actually following it either. After all, if the Kyoto Treaty was so very, very important to Al Gore, he was Vice President at the time. Couldn't he have done something to persuade the Senate to ratify it?