The USA policy towards Kyoto

Här kommer en kommentar i efterföljden av demokraterna så kapitalt misslyckades med att få the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act S-1291 antagen. Och att egentligen så är och blir USA:s poltik gentemot Kyoto avtaldet densamma oavsett vem som är president.

Se även mina tidigare inlägg: Cap and Burn – Bye Bye Lieberman-WarnerThe scariest organization you ever seen – Take your children and run before they tax you to death!This carbon bill isn’t the answerCap and Spend – The largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax!,  We Don’t Need a Climate Tax on the PoorClimate Reality Bites with Cap and trade – This is a giant revenue grabSacrifices to the Climate Gods Beware Lieberman-Warner, Just Call It ‘Cap-and-Tax’The Economic Costs of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change LegislationDemocrats Fall OutMcWavering: What’s the Deal-Breaker for Lieberman-Warner?Obamas Big Carbon FootprintHow Hawaii Will Be Affected by the Lieberman-Warner Global Climate Change LegislationClimate Catastrophe for The state of WashingtonGlobal warming proposals would gut N.C. economyCarbon plan ‘to cost business $22bn’,

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.globalwarming.org/node/2330

What Would Change?

Chris Horner, CEI

June 10, 2008

Numerous media outlets today are reporting a what is for some reason an unsettling reality that Europe must face up to: the U.S. is no more likely to jump into the EU’s beloved Kyoto mess under President Obama or McCain than they did under George W. Bush.

As AFP reports, ”‘Obama and McCain have made clearly more positive noises on climate change,’ an EU official said. ‘I think that’s a misconception frankly,’ US Special Envoy for EU Affairs C. Boyden Gray told AFP. ‘If you read what Obama has said about China’s need to be engaged (in a global deal) and that what McCain says is identical to what the president is saying, (then) I don’t think that’s going to change.'”

Maybe it’s time to recall that it didn’t change when switching from Clinton-Gore to Bush, either.

Al Gore has dined out for seven years on the phony complaint, enabled by the media, that U.S. climate/Kyoto policy experienced a wrenching transformation upon Bush’s inauguration.

As I reminded Mr. Gore when he repeated this spin at the Wednesday meeting of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy in January 2006 – just before telling us that, you know, there was another man who saw a gathering storm, last century, when others didn’t see the threat (ugh) – the U.S. policy has remained constant since July 2005. Then, a unanimous Senate voted 95-0 to not engage in such a deal ”unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period,” expressly citing China, Mexico, India, Brazil, and South Korea).

On March 17, 2001, Condoleeza Rice was dispatched to inform EU ambassadors that the Bush administration was going to continue the Clinton-Gore administration policy of not seeking ratification of the signed pact. Unfortunately, that isn’t how they phrased it and, while I am a firm believer in being quite clear and direct with one’s rhetoric, here I admit that a little more polish would have helped. Imagine a world where that was the message, as opposed to the (truthful…still) line about it being for all intents and purposes a dead letter, which made it easy for the press to suddenly claim Bush scrapped the deal.

U.S. policy didn’t change under George W. Bush, only the rhetoric did: Clinton-Gore swore philsophical fealty to Kyoto but also expressly vowed to not push for ratification until China, India et al came on board. Bush expressed no love for the treaty but had the same position. He never unsigned it, withdrew from it (impossible) or walked away from the table (the latter was done only once, by Clinton-Gore, in The Hague in November 2000).

It is now fairly clear if not yet certain that U.S. policy would not change under Obama or McCain. Yet even a sudden, unprecedented vow to press on with at best some cosmetic promise by China, India et al. would never pass muster in the Senate. Which is where the issue rests today, as it has since the U.S. signed Kyoto on November 12, 1998.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6+USA” rel=”tag”>miljö USA</a>

Annonser

Etiketter: , ,

3 svar to “The USA policy towards Kyoto”

  1. Democratic Senators rebelled against their leadership and opposed the Boxer Climate Tax Bill « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] även mina inlägg: America’s native criminal class – The Congress,  The USA policy towards Kyoto,  Global Warming Hysterics view rising fuel costs as ‘the best thing that can […]

  2. A factory that makes 30 TIMES MORE MONEY by selling “carbon credits” to fight global warming than it makes by selling it’s products. « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] and opposed the Boxer Climate Tax Bill,  America’s native criminal class – The Congress,  The USA policy towards Kyoto,  Global Warming Hysterics view rising fuel costs as ‘the best thing that can […]

  3. The perfect “Eco Friendly” life for humans according to The Global Warming Hysterics « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] and opposed the Boxer Climate Tax Bill, America’s native criminal class – The Congress,  The USA policy towards Kyoto,  Global Warming Hysterics view rising fuel costs as ‘the best thing that can […]

Kommentera

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Twitter-bild

Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Facebook-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Google+ photo

Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Ansluter till %s


%d bloggare gillar detta: