On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 09:00:03 -0400
dep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Thursday 13 September 2001 05:10, Chang wrote:
| | i hate to say this:
| | to be truely peaceful, you gotta sign the treaty on CO2 emission.
| | :)
|
| oh yeah? the one that says the u.s. is a bad guy, while china and
| everybody else can do as they please? what part of "not bloody
| likely" are you having difficulty understanding?
And isn't it true that in this agreement countries can 'sell' their alotted
emissions if they don't use them? Who has the money to buy such things?
And, when they do buy them, as they will, what will have been accomplished?
Who else will be pissed off at what those damned rich countries do? So,
why agree to a treaty that may (I use that lightly) cause one set of
problems but create another set?
How about if a country makes something for consumption elsewhere? Is it
the producer or the consumer that gets the penalty for the emission
to make it? I know US is a country that uses alot, but I always wondered
how much of it was for sales elsewhere, clouding the issue of end user
consumption and producer consumption.
--
=====================================================================
Roger Oberholtzer E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OPQ Systems AB WWW: http://www.opq.se
Erik Dahlbergsgatan 41-43 Phone: Int + 46 8 314223
115 32 Stockholm Mobile: Int + 46 733 621657
Sweden Fax: Int + 46 8 302602
_______________________________________________
http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc
->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
