Nobel winner: theories on Iraq, global warming
The idea that they would make commitments subject to sanctions is a poor one. I am impressed with the fact in the articles of the European Union, it is explicit that any nation that for three years in a row has a budget deficit in excess of 3 percent of gross domestic product is to be subject to severe sanctions. A year ago, France and Germany both completed three years in a row with budget deficits in excess of 3 percent of GDP, and absolutely nothing was done and nothing was even contemplated. Nobody is going to try to slap a tax on France or Germany, and nobody is going to threaten military invasion because they won't pay a penalty.
It sounds as if you think there is nothing that can be done right away, but it is more of a long-term . . .
A big part of it should be research and development. I would hope that a lot of that could be done through international cooperation. . . . I think it will be hard to do anything without the U.S. taking a leading role, and I think this administration was never going to. But I don't blame just George Bush. Al Gore went to Kyoto during the negotiations. After the treaty was signed, the Clinton administration just let it sit there for three years and did nothing about it. Since the Kyoto Treaty was roughly aimed at the year 2010, three years to do nothing was a lot of time to let go by. If Gore had been elected, he might have been embarrassed because he might have felt obliged to go up to the Senate and ask for ratification of the treaty. And they might have said, "If we ratify this treaty, what do we have to do? We're going to have to raise taxes, have subsidies. We're going to have to finance a lot of research and development. We're going to have to pass a lot of new legislation, regulate automobile mileage, or boating standards, and all of that." Gore would have had to say, "I don't know. Let me think about it."
advertisement
