The Kyoto Protocol/Treaty .... let the flames begin.... - RC Groups
Thread Tools
Aug 06, 2001, 10:32 AM
Libertas in Infinitum
logan5's Avatar

The Kyoto Protocol/Treaty .... let the flames begin....

Just thought I'd throw this in as I've seen a lot of complaining from people about Bush withdrawing from the Kyoto Treaty:

This passage comes directly from the CONDITIONS ON "GLOBAL WARMING" TREATY/Passage document as found at

"The Clinton Administration recently agreed to the Berlin Mandate. That mandate states that the United States and other developing nations will negotiate binding timetables for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, principally carbon dioxide, and that they will reduce them by specified amounts. That mandate further specifically exempts developing countries from reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. All the developing countries will be asked to do is agree to talk about imposing restrictions on their emissions at a future date. This resolution repudiates the Berlin Mandate. It unequivocally lets the Clinton Administration and the world know that under no circumstances will the Senate agree to such a treaty. If the Clinton Administration returns from the Kyota(sic), Japan conference in December with such a treaty as a successor to the current, voluntary global warming treaty, it will be rejected. This resolution states that any successor agreement must bind developing nations as well, which will soon be the greatest producers of greenhouse gases. Binding the developed nations only would just result in manufacturing jobs leaving those nations to countries in which restrictions did not apply, and emissions would continue to rise. (Making matters even worse, the Europeans are trying to negotiate the right to "trade" pollution shares among greater and lesser polluting European countries, with the result that they would have to make little, if any, reductions; under that plan, the United States would be virtually the only country in the world that would have to make reductions). "

This resoloution specifically tells the President, the American people and the world, what the Senate will and will not accept in terms of a Global Warming treaty. And if you read the entire resoloution you will find that in a vote of 95 - 0 with 5 abstaining the Senate agreed to disallow any treaty signed by the President that provides exemptions by developing countries and the trading of emmission limits by europe.
Which were all in the Kyoto Treaty. Clinton knew this but signed anyway knowing full well it would not pass in Congress.

Say what you want about Bush, but for those of you who aren't familliar with the American process, it takes a vote by Congress to ratify a treaty ... not some stroke of the pen by the President. So I would think that pulling away from a treaty who's present form would not have been passed by Congress just save the US a lot of time, and maybe would have forced the drafters to make changes that would have been more acceptable to the US senate.

Aug 06, 2001, 11:13 AM
Registered User addition, how many nations have actually ratified the treaty? At last count, I've heard that only one actually ratified the accord. I think that it is hypocritical for other nations to publicly flog President Bush when they haven't ratified Kyoto either.
Aug 06, 2001, 11:44 AM
Registered User
all the earopeans always want to blame the US for their problems, AFTER we get through saving their buts...
Aug 06, 2001, 11:30 PM
Registered User
In my opinion we have to start some where....If Bush and his group don't like this solution ...Put forth a solution of their own...don't just ignore the problem????
Aug 06, 2001, 11:39 PM
Registered User
They will be putting an alternative solution on the table any day now.
Aug 07, 2001, 01:39 AM
Useful Idiot
Barn Buster 50:
Perhaps, after Japan, Western Europe is the USA's staunchest politically significant ally. If you take a look at USA's motions in the UN it will be hard to find any occasions when we have voted against.
There are issues on which we disagree, but that's nothing unusual. A lot of Americans on this board dislike Clinton, it seems, and many aren't overfond of Bush and one or two don't like either.
As for saving buts; of course The USA's entry changed the course of WWll. However with a Japanese dominated Pacific, industrial Europe under German control and with the German's few years from developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems, it could be argued that you're making a virtue of necessity.
With regards to Kyoto, politicians the world over hate taking decisions that will cost them votes and would prefer to pass the buck to their successors. It's like putting off a dental appointment, when there's no alternative the treatment and the bill are much worse.
Aug 07, 2001, 06:23 AM
Registered User
Originally posted by barn buster 50:
all the earopeans always want to blame the US for their problems, AFTER we get through saving their buts...

Are you confusing your Europeans with your aeroplanes?


Aug 07, 2001, 09:49 AM
Libertas in Infinitum
logan5's Avatar
Originally posted by me11owman:
In my opinion we have to start some where....If Bush and his group don't like this solution ...Put forth a solution of their own...don't just ignore the problem????
They have made their concerns open, but the framers of the Treaty will not deviate. Signing a treaty that protects the environment is great and all, but when it allows other countries to circumvent the policies through built in loopholes while making yours toe the line is not just unfair, but detrimental to the economy. The US wants something that is binding by all nations and right now the Kyoto treaty will not allow for that.

Aug 07, 2001, 03:34 PM
Registered User
The facts are:

The USA is by far the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. Canada is second. It is obvious that if the problem is to be relieved, that these two countries need to act first and decisively.

The Europeans and Japan are against trading pollution and against the concept of carbon sinks. The USA and Canada are the ones promoting these get-outs in an attempt to reduce the amount they have to do. The reason that Europeans need to reduce their pollution less is because great strides have already been made in reducing emissions.

Bush and perhaps Clinton are being blamed for pulling out of the agreement simply because they are visible as being in charge. There seems though to be a general ostrich problem with much of the population of North America.
Aug 08, 2001, 02:06 AM
Registered User
sorry guys my typing was a little off...that evening, and perhaps my comments aobut our brittish alies were a little too much....

i was just frustrated that it seems like the US is always being flamed for something! were doing a pretty good job though,

the first democracy to ever have a succesfull rebellion and stay on our feet!