You are correct sir!
Posted on 12/06/2005 4:20:24 PM PST by calcowgirl
MONTREAL (Reuters) - While U.S. President George W. Bush refuses to accept the Kyoto Protocol to cut greenhouse gas emissions, at least 40 million Americans will find themselves bound to the international treaty to curb global warming.
Since the protocol took effect last February, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels has convinced 192 cities to agree to cut emissions 7 percent from 1990 levels by 2012 -- the recommended target for the United States, which emits 25 percent of the world's heat-trapping gases.
The cities join an increasing number of states, including California and New York, and leading corporations choosing to follow the Kyoto lead even while their country doesn't.
They can act by using renewable energy and alternative fuels, placing tougher controls on auto emissions or building energy-saving green buildings.
"We reject the idea that is put forward by our national leaders in the United States that we have a choice to save the environment or save the economy," Nickels said on Tuesday on the sidelines of the 189-nation United Nations conference on climate change.
Bush pulled the United States out of Kyoto in 2001, arguing that the mandatory emissions cuts for some 40 industrial nations would hurt U.S. growth and wrongly excluded developing economies like China and India.
And since then his administration has shown no sign of budging on accepting mandatory curbs, to the frustration of European leaders and environmental activists huddling in Montreal.
"Unfortunately, we are experiencing Category 5 denials by the Bush administration," said Jerome Ringo, who chairs the National Wildlife Federation in the United States and uses the term for the strongest hurricane rating.
Ringo said mayors, governors and congressmen are "filling the leadership vacuum left by the Bush administration."
CALIFORNIA LEADERSHIP
Cities, states and Congress are also showing that acting on climate change is a bipartisan effort, not one restricted to the Democrats who largely stand behind the Kyoto protocol.
California's Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has won environmentalists' praise at the conference with progress on his ambitious plan to reduce greenhouse gases in the nation's most populous state 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050.
Per capita carbon dioxide emissions in California are around half of the U.S. average and have fallen 30 percent since 1975, while they have remained constant for the country.
"We are all part of the solution on climate change. The governor recognizes that, while California is only a piece of that, leadership is important and we can play that role," Alan Lloyd, California's secretary for the environment, said.
As nations debate in Montreal how to proceed after 2012, a bipartisan group of 24 U.S. senators wrote a letter to Bush on Monday asking the administration to participate in talks in a "constructive way" and not block discussions on binding emissions.
Mayor Nickels hopes results on the local and state levels will eventually lead the United States back into the Kyoto protocol for post-2012.
"It is inevitable that after the cities and states show it is safe, the politicians in Washington, D.C. will join and again the United States will take its moral responsibility," he said.
As if the 95-0 vote on a senate resolution opposing the Kyoto treaty had nothing to do with it.
Wasn't that vote under Clinton?
You are correct sir!
You are correct sir!
Then how does W get the blame?
The Senate approves treaties.............
Deliberate misinformation otherwise known as propaganda.
Deliberate misinformation otherwise known as propaganda.
Thought I might have missed some other action along the way. Obviously, I didn't.
This is Outrageous, Outrageous! (T. Dashle.)
He voted against Kyoto and didn't!!!
Canada is a Kyoto signatory and saw its greenhouse emissions RISE 20% above the 1990 level, instead of dropping. To meet their obligations under Kyoto,they're going to have to buy "carbon credits" from countries like Russia. Kyoto is just going to end up being a funds transfer from the developed world to the undeveloped, and end up hurting the developed economies who have to lay out real money to buy what amounts to a bookkeeping entry.
interesting. do you know what the emissions figure for the US was during the same time period Canada's was rising 20%?
1. A local government cannot bind itself to a treaty with one or more foreign governments. Only the federal government may do so on behalf of the United States.
2. Using many forms of renewable energy or alternative fuels does not reduce carbon emissions. For example, the use of biomass and corn based gasoline and diesel supplements does not reduce and may even increase carbon emissions.
3. It is not possible for a city to craft effective limits on automobile emissions.
4. Building a "green" building does not cut emissions. It may limit the future growth of emissions, but it does not cut existing emissions.
4. The article presumes that a principal effect of Kyoto will be a reduction in greenhouse emissions. To date that has not been demonstrated.
5. Democrats do not "largely stand behind the Kyoto protocol." Virtually to a man the Democrats in the Senate voted against it.
5. The article implies that CO2 emissions in California have fallen since 1975 because of a commitment on the part of government to that goal. In fact, they have fallen there because of substantial increases in the efficiency of automobile engines primarily related to the cost of fuel.
My respect for the media in general and Reuters in particular declines every day. It used to be said that those who can do and those who can't teach. I am starting to believe that it should be said that those who can do and those who can't report.
Bingo. And that's one of the reasons it will not result in a reduction of global greenhouse emissions.
Bingo. And that's one of the reasons it will not result in a reduction of global greenhouse emissions.
In the past third of a century, the American economy has swollen by 150 per cent, automobile traffic has increased by 143 per cent, and energy consumption has grown 45 per cent. During this same period, air pollutants have declined by 29 per cent, toxic emissions by 48.5 per cent, sulphur dioxide levels by 65.3 per cent, and airborne lead by 97.3 per cent. Despite signing on to Kyoto, European greenhouse gas emissions have increased since 2001, whereas America's emissions have fallen by nearly one per cent, despite the Toxic Texan's best efforts to destroy the planet.
Had America and Australia ratified Kyoto, and had the Europeans complied with it instead of just pretending to, by 2050 the treaty would have reduced global warming by 0.07C - a figure that would be statistically undectectable within annual climate variation. In return for this meaningless gesture, American GDP in 2010 would be lower by $97 billion to $397 billion - and those are the US Energy Information Administration's somewhat optimistic models.
I knew it would come in handy!
I generally like the states to have the freedom to do what they want. In this instance the more states that implement Kyoto, the less competitive the U.S. will be.
As you know, Kyoto is a big joke. The worst poluters on the planet get a free pass while we implement plans in the extreme to comply with it.
LVM, what this article addresses is states and municipalities implementing Kyoto on their own. No our federal government didn't sign on, but the nation is moving ahead with this fiasco anyway, one town and one state at a time.
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.