Posted on 11/13/2004 3:55:40 AM PST by George Frm Br00klyn Park
WorldNetDaily / Commentary
Henry Lamb
Here comes Kyoto!
Posted: November 13, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Delegates to the 10th anniversary meeting of the Climate Change Treaty in Buenos Aires are giddy in anticipation of the Kyoto Protocol entering into force early next year. The meeting, which is scheduled for Dec. 6-17, is the first meeting since Russia decided to ratify the agreement.
What does this mean for the United States? No one really knows, but whatever it means, it is not likely to be good.
The international community was extremely disgusted with President Bush when he withdrew the U.S. from participation in 2001. They were even more disgusted when 59.4 million "dumb" Americans chose to re-elect the president. Now, with the Protocol entering into force, it could well become the instrument through which the international community seeks revenge.
A primary behind-the-scenes condition for Russia's ratification was an unwritten agreement that the European Union would support Russia's admission to the World Trade Organization. The WTO is the only existing mechanism that has any real power to enforce the Kyoto Protocol.
As early as 1997, even before the Protocol was adopted, enforcement was a contentious issue that was discussed at U.N. meetings only in the hallways and rarely in a public session. In the hallways, however, the WTO was widely recognized as the weapon of choice to force slacker nations to meet the Protocol's ambitious requirements.
Even though the United States is not a party to the Kyoto Protocol, it is a member of the WTO, and as such, is subject to, and bound by, the decisions made by the WTO. The WTO consists of 150 member nations. Ultimate decision-making authority rests with the Ministerial Conference. Decisions are reached by consensus.
The United States and Australia are the largest nations that have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Two nations, among the 150 members of the WTO, cannot affect, nor prevent, a consensus decision that penalizes the U.S. or Australia.
Another tool is the Protocol itself. Once it enters into force, it can be amended to create any kind of enforcement mechanism the parties wish. Whether through the WTO, or an amended Protocol, one thing is clear: The United States will be punished by the international community. One way or the other, the cost of imported energy will increase.
Remember, the purpose of the Protocol is to redistribute wealth by controlling access to, and the cost of, energy. That's why the Protocol is binding only upon developed nations, leaving China, India and other developing nations to use all the energy they want, without penalty.
President Bush will be under intense pressure to rejoin the Protocol so the U.S. will have a seat at the table to participate in amendment discussion. Pressure will come from the international community, the media and individuals from mostly "blue" states.
People in the "red" states and their elected officials should support the president's determination to stay out of this international entanglement, as well as his plan to improve U.S. self-reliance, by using our own resources while removing some of the regulatory web that has blocked, for decades, growth in the development, processing and distribution of domestic energy.
It is now abundantly clear that the United Nations system is no friend of the United States. It is equally clear that the U.N. has its own agenda and that it is corrupt and unaccountable. Ignored sex scandals among its highest officials, outright bribery in the oil-for-food program, behind-the-scenes influence peddling and repeated failure to address tragedies such as those in the Sudan and Rwanda render the institution useless as an instrument to advance peace and freedom in the world.
The United States must rely on itself to defeat terrorism, along with help from nations such as the UK, Australia, Japan and the more than 30 other nations that are currently participating in the coalition. Abundant, affordable energy is essential to a successful war on terror and to fuel the economy that pays for the war.
The first purpose of the Kyoto Protocol is to place international control over America's energy use. Despite the unfounded claims of blue-state liberals, the United States must use its vast coal and oil resources, and it must expand its use of nuclear energy as well. We should expand and accelerate development of energy alternatives, but use of existing resources should not be unnecessarily suppressed by either the Kyoto Protocol or the baseless claims of environmental extremists.
The Clinton/Gore regime nurtured the Kyoto Protocol into existence; the Bush regime recognized its horrible implications for the United States and said "no thank you." Any international institution that seeks to limit or control the United States should be jettisoned, whether the Kyoto Protocol, the WTO or the U.N. itself.
Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.
Remember, the purpose of the Protocol is to redistribute wealth by controlling access to, and the cost of, energy. That's why the Protocol is binding only upon developed nations, leaving China, India and other developing nations to use all the energy they want, without penalty.All, The above is EXACTLY SO! The protocol is for control period. And at a level of GOVERNMENT{?} with absolutely NO accountability to the "common man". ONLY the rich and powerful will have any type of input into the "consensuses" reached to govern YOUR children. Peace and love, George.
==============================================
Guys, The pressure IS ON! Peace and love, George.
There are problems, of course, but if we work on making ourselves energy independent, we can make the real politik of the E.U. work against them.
FB, Absolutely. Independent is THE keyword. It has worked WELL for over two hundred years. Peace and love, George.
Im a blue stater and I dont support Kyoto.
The trading of carbon credits is the mechanism for the redistribution of world wealth. This has been a major objective of the UN since at least the 60's.
Back in the days of my mispent youth, I was a participant in the Model UN program at my university. Students were assigned to represent various UN countries. We met and debated various resolutions. The redistribution of world wealth was always a subject for debate.
The way Kyoto would work is this. Each country would be assigned a quota of carbon by-products on a per-capita basis. Obviously, the lesser developed countries would have a surplus while the US would have a deficit. The US would either have to reduce energy consumption and living standards of buy carbon credits from the lesser developed countries. Buying these credits would result in a massive transfer of wealth. We would be forced to 'buy' something from a country that the country would not and could not use. Imagine, having to pay a country like Banglidesh for the right to heat your home or drive your car.
Well, don't we feed most of the world?
Water empire their butts!
>>>>the purpose of the Protocol is to redistribute wealth by controlling access to, and the cost of, energy<<<<<<
We are the wealthiest country in the world. what good can it do us to redistribute that wealth to someone.? Wealth redistributed to other places is wealth lost here. It would be stupid for us to do that and any damned fool should realise that.
Interesting, since the re-election of President GWB, our local paper has been inundated with global warning, (warming) articles. It was so many, from so many sources that that it was obvious some push was underway, and I see now that these are coming out prior to the latest meeting. Somehow shrinking glaciers, and melting icecap, spell the demise not only of seals and polar bears, in the latest article I noted, but far far worse, the demise of free world economy for the developed nations that have willingly gone along with the UN "scare tactics".
If we kick the UN out of the US, I'll bet my bottom dollar, that Paris is the destination of choice.
My take: global warming is a myth and if it isn't, nothing man can do will change the direction of the temperature that God has commanded to rise, if it is rising. Furthermore, why would we want to? The entire world is looking to move to warmer climes, God gives us warming climate change, and it spells the end of the world to unbelievers. In other words sit back, buckle up, enjoy the ride, and shut up about a subject only the UN and cracked up scientist, think they know anything about.
Lets start the ball rolling by drilling in ANWAR, approving off-shore oil drilling, making it easy to produce nuclear power plants, after we figure out what to do with the waste, although I hear they have more efficient power plant technology that leaves less spent fuel, getting rid of restricting regulations on gasoline types brought on by additives many of which are area specific and do not need to be, building refining capacity lost due to restrictive environmental regulations, lay waste to the power structure of rapid environmentalism that is restricting efforts to be energy self sufficient, and a thousand other things that will keep the United States of America on the forefront of technology, efficiency, development, and use of all kinds of energy.
Just say NO to the global warming is bad culture, and yes to a miniscule temperature rise which can only be for our good.
All I want to say is, now that I've had my say, it's a good thing I haven't had breakfast yet, global warming my...remaing comments self censored.
The answer to Kyoto and the WTO is , first, ANWR and coastal oil then ultimately nuclear energy abd deregulation. We will either go along to get along and become part of a rapidly declining Europe or we will take the American route and simply separate ourselves from Europe with American Enterprise and Nuclear energy. WTO and NAFTA and all of those things were expressions of the right idea about free markets and free people but the WRONG way to go about it. We should simply have dropped all barriers to trade (excepting military information), with one part of the world at a time, but relentlessly. Other countries would have to reciprocate or die economically. such things as Kyoto would be impossible. If we deregulate now and take the wraps off nuclear energy and oil we will render Kyoto ineffective against us and will rapidly leave any Kyoto bound country in the economic dust as Europe becomes the backwater workshop of American prosperity.
I don't think they'd have the balls. That would be begging for global war with the US
If Bush had the power to force a vote like that one, he'd have all the judicial nominees he wanted!
First thing we would need to do is get technology transfer, especially in computers and software under control. Those fields will get even more critical in the world and to energy creation management.
Sadly, the software companies are some of the most "blue" socialist leaning companies in the U.S. If we can keep this type of tech transfer as a chip in our hands we hold more power.
You mean, it's not really about the environment, but about MONEY? I am shocked and disappointed.
bump
Let's not forget that there are American troops sitting on millions of barrels of oil in Iraq that the Europeans would love to get their hands on.
American blood has already paid the Iraqis for that oil.
Then it's time to leave.
I say call their bluff. Push comes to shove, the world isn't going to disconnect their economic caboose from the US engine.
It would seem that the quickest solution to this threat is for the US to take complete control of the energy sources we need. It sounds to me like this is a threat of economic WAR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.