Comment on Kyoto before Chancellor leaves Washington.

The speaker expresses disagreement on a topic, emphasizing the importance of discussing different positions. They highlight a divergence in views on the Kyoto Protocol, stressing the responsibility of industrial nations in climate action. Despite acknowledging the US policy stance, they note unresolved questions and conclude with the idea that participation is challenging when matters are uncertain.

Warum glaubt der Sprecher, dass der Zeitpunkt für eine Beteiligung noch nicht gekommen ist?

Was bedeutet der Ausdruck 'in statu nescendi' im Kontext der Diskussion?