Just out of curiosity, what do you guys think of the Kyoto's Treaty leniency to underdeveloped nations? I understand both sides, here. I mean, the US and Western Europe have been polluting for more than a century. Now, that we see what's happening, and we're wealthy enough that we can *afford* to be environmentally friendly, we want environmental treaties. Sure, it might prove an INCONVENIENCE to be environmentally friendly, but hey... so what if we drink one fewer coke every week. But in the developing world the problem is more serious. It's almost impossible to BEGIN industrialization in a clean manner. And it seems hypocritical of us to insist that THEY be clean, when at the same stage we were not. Yet the ozone layer doesn't really care about "fair." Global warming, air pollution, desertification, etc... are happening regardless of whether or not forcing developing nations to be green is hypocritical. Perhaps some form of aid would be appropriate, to ease the transition. This is a difficult issue for me... but for once, I actually agree with Bush. Kyoto really was a bad treaty because it didn't solve for problems such as China, Algeria, Iran, etc. I don't mind the competitiveness factor; to me, that's only fair, since at their stage we didn't use environmentally friendly technology at all. I just think the treaty legitimizes bad environmental practices. The US should try to orchestrate a new treaty, which Bush probably won't try to do. Until then, the US should take unilateral action to improve its own emissions. Thoughts? ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001 [This message has been edited by haven (edited June 07, 2001).]
