Kyoto Treaty and Kerry lie - Freeper Alert

10/01/04 | Perdogg

[Perdogg]

Kerry accused the Bush Administration of withdrawing the Kyoto Protocols, but wasn't the Clinton Administration who withdrew it?

Plus, It seems now that Kerry Supports the Kyoto protocols. I think we have to let the people of the following states know about this:

Ohio New York New Jersey West Virginia Pennsylvania Kentucky Delaware Florida Southern California (Los Angelous County)

These people's lives will be hurt if this treaty is submitted and passed.

Let's start an email campaign to these states to let the people know!

[megatherium]

Actually, Bush was the one who decided to pull out of the treaty (in March 2001).

[RtWngr]

I believe Senator Kerry, along with all the other senators, voted against this treaty. But that was then. Since Bush is against it, it must now be a good idea.

"I always avoid prophesying beforehand, because it is a much better policy to prophesy after the event has already taken place." Winston Churchill

[Perdogg]

No, I recall the Clinton Administration not wanting to submit the treaty because they knew it would have been blasted by the Senate.

Nevertheless, Kerry supports it!

[Question_Assumptions]

The Kyoto treaty was DOA from the very beginning because there was no way that the Senate would ever ratify it, either under President Bush or President Clinton. Presidents can't unilaterally sign treaties and put them into effect. They have to be ratified and Kyoto won't be -- ever.

[carrier-aviator]

In 1997 the US Senate voted 95-0 essentially stating that the Kyoto Treaty was fatatlly flawed, and that it would not even consider it for ratificiation. Kerry was one of the 95.

[Ditto]

Plus, It seems now that Kerry Supports the Kyoto protocols. I think we have to let the people of the following states know about this:

During the Clinton administration, the Senate voted against Kyoto 97-0! The question is, was Kerry one of the 97 who rightfully rejected that junk-science economy busting treaty, or was he AWOL from his Senate duties that day too?

[Perdogg]

http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/Kyoto_Protocol


Summary: The United States, although a signatory to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified.

On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". Disregarding the Senate Resolution, on November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification.

[Perdogg]

SRES 98 ATS Passed in the Senate

105th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. RES. 98

[Report No. 105-54]

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

July 25, 1997
Mr. BYRD (for himself, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. WARNER, Mr. FORD, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. HELMS, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. ASHCROFT, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. BURNS, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. GLENN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. BOND, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr. DEWINE, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. GORTON, Mr. HATCH, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. CLELAND, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. JOHNSON, Ms. LANDRIEU, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr. FRIST, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. COATS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. GRAMM, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. LOTT, Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, Mr. ROBB, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. REID, Mr. BRYAN, Mr. THOMPSON, and Mr. CAMPBELL) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

July 21, 1997
Reported by Mr. HELMS, without amendment

July 25, 1997
Considered and agreed to

---

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Whereas the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (in this resolution referred to as the `Convention'), adopted in May 1992, entered into force in 1994 and is not yet fully implemented;

Whereas the Convention, intended to address climate change on a global basis, identifies the former Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe and the Organization For Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), including the United States, as `Annex I Parties', and the remaining 129 countries, including China, Mexico, India, Brazil, and South Korea, as `Developing Country Parties';

Whereas in April 1995, the Convention's `Conference of the Parties' adopted the so-called `Berlin Mandate';

Whereas the `Berlin Mandate' calls for the adoption, as soon as December 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, of a protocol or another legal instrument that strengthens commitments to limit greenhouse gas emissions by Annex I Parties for the post-2000 period and establishes a negotiation process called the `Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate';

Whereas the `Berlin Mandate' specifically exempts all Developing Country Parties from any new commitments in such negotiation process for the post-2000 period;

Whereas although the Convention, approved by the United States Senate, called on all signatory parties to adopt policies and programs aimed at limiting their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in July 1996 the Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs called for the first time for `legally binding' emission limitation targets and timetables for Annex I Parties, a position reiterated by the Secretary of State in testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate on January 8, 1997;

Whereas greenhouse gas emissions of Developing Country Parties are rapidly increasing and are expected to surpass emissions of the United States and other OECD countries as early as 2015;

Whereas the Department of State has declared that it is critical for the Parties to the Convention to include Developing Country Parties in the next steps for global action and, therefore, has proposed that consideration of additional steps to include limitations on Developing Country Parties' greenhouse gas emissions would not begin until after a protocol or other legal instrument is adopted in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997;

Whereas the exemption for Developing Country Parties is inconsistent with the need for global action on climate change and is environmentally flawed;

Whereas the Senate strongly believes that the proposals under negotiation, because of the disparity of treatment between Annex I Parties and Developing Countries and the level of required emission reductions, could result in serious harm to the United States economy, including significant job loss, trade disadvantages, increased energy and consumer costs, or any combination thereof; and

Whereas it is desirable that a bipartisan group of Senators be appointed by the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate for the purpose of monitoring the status of negotiations on Global Climate Change and reporting periodically to the Senate on those negotiations: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, 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, or

(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and

(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this resolution to the President.

END

[buffyt]

Hole in ozone layer shrinks


A GAPING hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica appears to have shrunk by about 20 per cent from last year’s record-breaking size, scientists said today.

Experts in New Zealand said their measurements backed up satellite data showing the hole peaked at about nine million square miles compared with 11 million square miles in 2003.

Scientist Stephen Wood said: "We need to see smaller ozone holes over a number of years before we can say for certain that ozone is recovering."

[WildTurkey]

Kerry accused the Bush Administration of withdrawing the Kyoto Protocols, but wasn't the Clinton Administration who withdrew it?

The Senate pre-empted Clinton by passing a bill to prevent him from signing it.

[Perdogg]

Guess who didn't vote?

[Calpernia]

ping

[Yankee Sistah]

China is the worst threat to the Kyoto Protocol, yet the UN made sure China was exempt from it. Clinton did reject it, as did Bush. Protecting the earth is not without merit, but Kyoto is more about radical and extremist economic and global control than it is about the earth. Al Gore tried to use it in his campaign against Bush and even made a mock public pretense of signing it (implying Bush's refusal to endorse it, when even Al's own Commander in Chief would not do it).

cripes...LIBS will stoop to anything to get elected *roll eyes*

[HoustonTech]

How can you pull out of a treaty that was never ratified?

[Mamzelle]

Did Kerry vote at all on Kyoto?--bump to your question--

[Dekan]

It was my understanding that Clinton didnt really support it, but let the Senate take the heat (from his supporters of course) for not getting it passed.

That's how insane Kerry is, even Clinton wouldnt support some of the stuff he supports on Tuesdays, Thursdays and every other Saturday.

[meema]

bump

[brooklin]

Why wouldn't he support it? He's been wrong on everything else.

[Brilliant]

Bush "unsigned" the treaty after Clinton signed it. However, Congress never ratified it because Clinton told them not to.

Congress voted on the treaty, also, and voted it down unanimously. I assume then that Kerry voted against it.

Is Kerry now flip-flopping? Is he promising to ratify this treaty? If so, that would be a huge disaster, putting millions of Americans out of work and causing the tax rates to skyrocket, as well as the cost of gasoline, natural gas, heating oil, and electricity.