----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:50 AM
Subject: RE: US Isolationism RE: US at war in 1940?1942? L3
> At 21:04 14-6-01 +0300, Charlie Bell wrote:
>
> > > The US Senate voted 99-0 against the Treaty. I don't
> > > know how things work in Europe, but here in the United
> > > States, new laws must be approved by the elected
> > > representatives of the people. These representatives
> > > voted 99-0 against those laws.
> >
> >So 100% of the representative voted against the treaty. Did 100% of
American
> >oppose the treaty? The "World's Largest Democracy" isn't terribly
> >democratic, is it?
>
> One might indeed argue that when a majority of the people says "Yes",
while
> the representatives all say "No", the US definitely has a problem with
> understanding the basics of democracy.
>
Well, are you opposed to representative government? The fact that the
Senate unanimously passed a resolution against Kyoto indicates that those
representatives thought
1) it would be very harmful to the US
and/or
2) it would be very harmful to them to go on record opposing this resolution
Since there are people in the Senate with an record of supporting
environmental legistlation comperable to Gore's, I would argue that 2 has to
enter in.
If asked in a poll about Kyoto, many Americans would casually say that they
favor the reduction of greenhouse gas emmissions. But, when push comes to
shove, and the US goes into a prolonged recession as a consequence of
complying, then any politician who came out in favor of that would have a
milestone around his neck come the next elections.
Opinion polls on subjects the public has limitied knowledge on are very
volital. They can change 20%-30% in a few weeks, as the public gains
familiarity with the subject. I think Sonja noted with pride that the
Neatherlands did not increase the use of energy over the last 3 years.
Well, that's worthwhile, but if the 30% reduction is really required of the
US, while its population is growing, then a 40% drop per capita will be
required.
That is overwhelming. I cannot see that happening without a massive, long
term recession. US citizens will not vote for a measure that will call for
that type of sacrifice. In the long term, we can significantly increase the
use of nuclear energy and change the distribution of population, make more
efficient cars, etc. But, that type of cut will not be at all popular.
Let me ask a question. If Kyoto is worthwhile, why hasn't the Neatherlands
taken the lead and actually ratified it? If Europe is for it, than why not
ratifity it to put pressure on the US?
Dan M.
