im not a scientist but as long as the u.s. stays on the sidelines it seems to me that kyoto will only make a dent in the greenhouse gases problem rather than going a long ways to solving it.
there are economically proven strategies of emissions trading which have been proposed, such as in the lieberman-mccain bill (which itself is a heavily watered down kyoto legislation), but all have been shot down or are unlikely to ever be adopted.
what quality of evidence must be presented for the u.s. to adopt some form of clean air legislation?
by constantly returning to the refrain that there is not yet conclusive evidence of harmful effects of carbon dioxide, the administration makes one wonder what it will take. when plenty of other nations, industrially developed and developing, have already signed on and ratified the agreement, there is cause for suspicion.
there are economically proven strategies of emissions trading which have been proposed, such as in the lieberman-mccain bill (which itself is a heavily watered down kyoto legislation), but all have been shot down or are unlikely to ever be adopted.
what quality of evidence must be presented for the u.s. to adopt some form of clean air legislation?
by constantly returning to the refrain that there is not yet conclusive evidence of harmful effects of carbon dioxide, the administration makes one wonder what it will take. when plenty of other nations, industrially developed and developing, have already signed on and ratified the agreement, there is cause for suspicion.
?
