In a message dated 7/31/01 9:06:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< iven that the United States is known to not be agreeing to the Treaty, and
#2 is exceedingly difficult, those nations were engaging in the usual sort
of ineffectual self-aggrandizement and America-bashing that has sadly
become the de rigeur of international politics since the end of the Cold War.
Those 180+ nations get to take credit of being oh-so-holier-than- the evil
USA, with full knowledge that they will never be held accountable for a
single cost.
Feh.
>>
But this is just the start. Yes there was a great deal of posturing and yes
some of the countries signed on knowing that the US would not but that is not
the point. The US could have had a huge say in the way the treaty was
crafted. We still can but not if we sit on the sidelines. To say we need more
study is just an evasion. Whether or not the science is utlimately proven to
be correct, the idea that global warming is real and that it will have
devestating personal and economic effects is believed to be true by the vast
majority of responsible scientists who have studied the issue. That won't
change.
Bush's decision is incredibly short sighted. The point about global warming
is not that there will be some costal flooding. The point is that the
climate of the entire world will change. Massive change in climate will bring
massive economic upheaval. When the dust (or rain) settles it is not clear
who will be on top but given the way odds work it would be good bet that it
won't be us. (We are number 1 now. We can only go down or stay the same. What
if we slipped to number 3.) That would be a small change but it would be
devestating to our economy. And it is so pointless. We can solve this if we
start now with minimal economic disruption. Remember any disruption is bad
for us.
