Messrs Clinton and Gore must have known that the whole business was a waste of time, so their sham acquiescence went beyond cynicism The Senate voted 95-0 against ratifying Kyoto The only surprise was that the majority was so low The Senate was correct. Kyoto would have bound the US to an unrealistic reduction in energy use and crippled the economy. Developing countries were largely exempt from the Kyoto restraints, although they are likely to be responsible for some of the sharpest increases in pollutant emissions. Equally, the European nations who are so unhappy with Mr Bush have chosen a curious way of showing their commitment to Kyoto. None has yet ratified it.Many scientists believe that greenhouse gases will create dangerous levels of global warming. But our planet can produce its own climate changes without our intervention.
A few years ago, scientists claimed that another ice age was about to begin. If so, global warming may have started just in time.But if there is a problem, Kyoto cannot be the answer. Nothing is going to reduce the advanced world's appetite for energy, nor the ambitions of developing countries to consume energy at advanced-world levels. Fortunately, there is a solution, for there is an obvious source of clean energy in almost unlimited supply: nuclear power.
The difficulties are well known: safety and dealing with nuclear waste. But given the fecundity of science, it is hard to accept that these problems are insoluble. A large research programme into both safety and waste could provide a cheap and environmentally friendly answer to the globe's energy needs.There can be no solution to future energy needs without nuclear power, just as there can be no answer to mankind's safety requirements without missile defence. The Americans are not proposing to have an antiballistic system that would destroy the deterrent value of the Russian and Chinese missiles. They are merely intending to spend their own taxpayers' money on measures to prevent rogue states from inflicting hideous damage on the rest of mankind. This is a benevolent, indeed charitable, undertaking, and only two groups of nations could possibly find it offensive: the rogue states, and those such as the French, who think like rogue states.President Bush's ratings remain healthy, as does his ability to drive legislation through the Senate, despite the absence of a working majority.
He may only have secured three-quarters of the tax cut that he initially proposed, but three months ago, most observers doubted his ability to deliver even half of those cuts.The gap between European and American perceptions of George Bush is unbridgeable In Europe, he is widely seen as a cretinous lunatic. In the United States, he is increasingly seen as a formidable president, who is likely to become even more so. Fortunately, it is the American people who will have the chance to re-elect him More from Bruce Anderson. A blow for humanity was struck yesterday by The Independent on Sunday's revelation of the fantastic amount of unnecessary dentistry that's been going on A blow for humanity was struck yesterday by The Independent on Sunday's revelation of the fantastic amount of unnecessary dentistry that's been going on. Professor Aubrey Sheiha, of University College London, is the author of a report that derides the six-monthly check-up, and asserts that fluoride in the water has made such a signal difference to tooth-care that a check-up every three to five years is perfectly adequate.
Worse: not only are all those cosmetic procedures useless (the teeth revert almost immediately to their natural condition), but also result in some marvellously unintended consequences. "A study in 1986 revealed that scaling, polishing and root-planning result in permanent loss of attachment to the tooth... The reason that women lose their teeth earlier than men is that they go to the dentist more often."Years ago, some young males discovered a different approach to the tooth problem. Forward-looking farm boys, so it's said, used to prepare themselves for adult life by having all their teeth taken out the day after they left school It cost a bit, but paid dividends in the long run. You never had to go to the dentist again.That was a wholly rational course of action and not just financially in the days when dentists were experimental sadists paid neither by the hour nor by the tooth, but by the scream. The dentist that treated us under-10-year-olds never used anaesthetic; he'd inspect our mouths and count off the number of fillings on his fingers (there were times when one hand wasn't enough). He'd dig around with that hook, to see if it hurt (it always hurt), then he'd get the drill out.