Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net>]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:59:47 -0400, judd wrote in
[🔎] tkrat.33f78fe94485d4f6@wadsworth.org:

> On 23 Mar, Ron Johnson wrote:
> 
>> ...
> 
> 
>>>      I'd assume that the US wouldn't be considered a signatory to
>>> an international agreement until it's also ratified.  Perhaps I'm
>>> wrong about the terminology.
>> 
>> We (the US) are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol treaty, but have not
>> ratified it.  Thus it is not binding law.
>> 
>> 
>      It is not binding in US domestic law.  That much is clear.  I'm
> not sure of the status under international law outside the US.  Any
> lawyers on the list?
> 
>      In particular, I remember hearing that the Kyoto protocol would
> apply to activities of US companies outside of the US once the required
> number of states ratified it.  As I've said, I'm not a lawyer and can't
> attest to the accuracy of that statement.

..another way is consider the military effect, such as Norwegian gas 
turbines emitting CO2, causing some heat up and sea level rise, flooding 
low Pacific islands, Bangla Desh or Holland.  Destroying land this way is 
a war crime under the Conventions, and under the Norwegian military penal 
code, anyone causing this or harmed by this, qualifies as "being on the 
battlefield", to paraphrase the gist of the Norwegian language in there.

-- 
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
  Scenarios always come in sets of three: 
  best case, worst case, and just in case.