Quote:
|
Originally Posted by acropolis
"Meeting Kyoto targets without hurting your economy" when there is full participation and doing the same when there is not full paricipation in the treaty are completely different things.
|
That's as may be, but Kyoto doesn't require full participation. First, only Annex I (developed) countries have to reduce emissions--meaning that high-CO2-producing industries like steel production by transferred to non-Annex I (developing) countries (you may recall that the lack of participation by China and other developing countries was the principle objection by the US to ratifying Kyoto); and second, not all countries had to ratify Kyoto before it went into effect.
Both of these flaws were well known when the treaty was drawn up. No country (to my knowledge) was forced to ratify it; yet nevertheless, many did. Hopefully, they will be more diligent when drawing up and ratifying such treaties in the future.
In any event, the Annex I signatories are stuck with a bad treaty largely of their own making. The best they can do now is to try to meet their targets with--hopefully--minimal economic impact. I sincerely wish them the best.
Quote:
|
Either way, Wisconsin will claim they were proven right. Which is an intellecutally dishonest viewpoint; if both had opted in, widget prices would have gone up a few %, but the economy would be fine and people would be better off.
|
Or perhaps the widget industries would have relocated to some other state or country? It's a global economy now, and it would be intellectually dishonest for Wisconsin or Minnesota to claim they didn't know that.
__________________
The Ottawa Citizen and Southam News wish to apologize for our apology to Mark Steyn, published Oct. 22. In correcting the incorrect statements about Mr. Steyn published Oct. 15, we incorrectly published the incorrect correction. We accept and regret that our original regrets were unacceptable and we apologize to Mr. Steyn for any distress caused by our previous apology.