In an article (HT Instapundit) decrying the alleged environmental waste in the United Arab Emirates, Associated Press writer Jim Krane gave voice to the environmental strain of Bush Derangement Syndrome when he claimed:
But the oil-rich Emirates is considered a developing country, and even as a signatory to the United Nations Kyoto protocol on global warming, is not required to cut emissions. The United States is no longer bound by Kyoto, which the Bush administration rejected after taking office in 2001.
Uh, no (from Instapundit's entry that links to Wiki; see third paratraph at this OpinionJournal.com link for additional support of its historical accuracy):
On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[40] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol 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". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol.
Bush can't reject something that has only been "symbolically" signed, even if the "symbolic" signer is Mr. "Inconvenient Truth" himself. Bush can only reject it when the Senate gets it to him. That never happened, and the AP is dead wrong.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Kyoto Kraziness
January 16, 2007 - 10:22 ET by nkviking75The Clintonistas tried to establish policies in keeping with Kyoto via executive orders, even though the Senate had rejected the treaty. Bush overturned those orders. The US was never bound by Kyoto.
Besides, while the US is not perfect, we've cleaned up our act quite a bit. The real effort needs to be concentrated in the developing countries.
Free-market nations like the
January 16, 2007 - 12:35 ET by mattmFree-market nations like the U.S. clean up their own messes. Environmentalism is a front for communists/socialists which they are using to extort money from the wealthy nations (which just happen NOT to be any of the socialist nations).
They complained about the "tax give-aways" to the oil companies (which were incentives to invest in alternative energy sources and forms to reduce our dependency on foreign oil) - and now they want those "tax give-aways" for themselves.
Let the developing countries adopt free-market economies, and representative republican forms of government, based on basic human freedoms: freedom of religion, speech, association etc. and basic property rights and justice for all....Let them do this, and they'll clean up their own act...just keep the enviro-commies out of it...
Another distortion of reality by the MSM.
January 16, 2007 - 10:26 ET by acaiguanaAnother distortion of reality by the MSM.
Another figure in the cast of thousands.
Why can't they get it simply right?
Not.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
Wow. Another stiff shot to t
January 16, 2007 - 12:11 ET by SchwabertWow. Another stiff shot to the gut of AP credibility.
--Perpetual itching without benefit of scratching to the enemies of America.--
Our water, land and space are
January 16, 2007 - 12:32 ET by Senior ChiefOur water, land and space are the most regulated in the world- making it too cumbersome and bureaucratic in all of the developing countries. Our's is the cleanest compared to theirs. Been there and saw it...So then, why our environmentalist freaks won't harp on China and Russia and other polluters in the world who pollute more than we do by mega times? Maybe the libs can negotiate on this issue.
Clinton's actual view?
January 16, 2007 - 12:37 ET by Gary HallClinton's actual view? Tom. Although the media found it difficult to document Bill Clinton's varying views on Kyoto, it remained my understanding - to the end of his term - that he never had any determination to push Kyoto through in it's then current form. I believe that the story goes that Gore was a royal thorn in the side of Clinton over the issue. Certainly one can believe that Clinton believed more in Kyoto, then does Bush, but I sense that Clinton actually understood what needed to be done to make it work - and that included not only the 3rd world countries being a part of it, but it included the US going heavily to nuclear power - a battle he did not intend to fight.
As with the limited missile defense system, with Saddam, with N. Korea, collapsing economy, etc. - Clinton forgo making the necessary decisions, preferring to escape the political trap by leaving all of these things to a G. W. Bush.
The one thing that Clinton could always count on? The MSM protecting his legacy (the legacy they want him to have) by blaming all of it on the next president.
Clinton never submitted the
January 16, 2007 - 12:49 ET by motherbeltClinton never submitted the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for a vote, because he knew it would never be ratified. Instead, he tried to implement it piecemeal, with executive orders and new EPA regulations, doing an end-run around the ratification process.
Since Clinton basically "agreed" with the Kyoto stuff, that was good enough for the AP. Bush didn't, so they claim that he "rejected" the treaty. That's only true in the sense of "accepting" or "rejecting" the premise, not official ratification.
Clinton never submitted the
January 16, 2007 - 12:51 ET by motherbeltdeleted double post
AP's motto: Facts...We do
January 16, 2007 - 13:23 ET by alcatrazAP's motto: Facts...We don't need no stinkin' facts...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mi
January 16, 2007 - 13:32 ET by Rackiehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6245463.stm
I did not know this.
hh
January 16, 2007 - 14:34 ET by Tom BlumerPretty Amazing, isn't it? Where's the watchdog media?
What nation has agreed to Kyo
January 16, 2007 - 13:34 ET by sembyWhat nation has agreed to Kyoto?
It's a job killer!
Canada ratified it in Decembe
January 16, 2007 - 14:36 ET by UnsaneCanada ratified it in December 2002. The 2007 World Almanac and Book of Facts has more information:
"By 1999, 84 countries had signed the protocol, but the agreement could not be implemented until it was ratified by at least 55 countries responsible for at least 55% of developed nations' greenhouse emissions. This threshhold was reached with Russia's Nov. 2004 ratification, and the protocol took effect on February 16, 2005. By February 2006, 160 parties to the treaty had ratified and the UN estimated that many of these nations would be achieving emissions reductions of 3.5% below 1990 levels by 2012."
Of course, missing from the almanac's brief rundown of the Kyoto Protocol is the fact that many countries, such as China and India, are exempt from it, and that such activities as tropical deforestation are not covered anywhere in the protocol.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Unsane, Canada ratified it in December 2002 - but
January 16, 2007 - 15:59 ET by Gary HallUnsane, Canada ratified it in December 2002 - but according to this Dec., 2005 story in the San Fancisco Chronicle (of all places - surprise surprise surprise) (my bold):
A report released by the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation noted that Canada was far behind in its pledge to reach Kyoto accord targets and had not set targets for itself when the Kyoto targets expire in 2012.
"Canada's energy policies, which include support for rapid expansion of highly greenhouse gas-intensive activities such as oil sands development, are sharply at odds with our climate policy," it said.
May, of the Sierra Club, said: "Using 1990 as the base year, Canada's emissions are now 24 percent higher, while the United States is up by 14 percent. The United States' performance is superior to Canada's, even though it is outside Kyoto."
Nothing like private enterprise!
Please note the population in
January 16, 2007 - 16:54 ET by dscottPlease note the population increase of the US since 1990 (248,709,873) versus 2000 (281,421,906) is about a 13% increase. According to the DOE energy consumption per person has been the same for 30 years.
Energy consumption is proportional to population.
1990 US GDP (2000 dollars): $7,112.5 billion
1990 US GDP (2000 dollars): $9,817.0 billion
Represents a 38% increase
We are actually using less energy to produce our GDP, that's called efficiency attributable to Capitalism, not government regulation.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
scott
January 16, 2007 - 18:23 ET by Gary HallThe population growth relationship to emissions is equally linked. This forms a portion of my basic view concerning immigration (and illegal immigration reform). We are and will continue to make bold advancements in technology here. Zero pop growth for the US immediately would result in a downward trend in emissions (greenhouse gases, etc).
This is why I call the Kyoto
January 17, 2007 - 17:38 ET by dscottThis is why I call the Kyoto treaty a fraud. If you check the Wikipedia population charts for 1990 and 2012 you will note that both Europe and Japan were estimated to increase in population past 1990 then go back to their 1990 levels by 2012 due to their declining birth rate. In other words the Europeans were counting on their declining birth rate to bring them into compliance without lifting a finger, this way they could demagogue the whole issue. The population didn't reduce as the chart suggested but continued upward due to immigration from the ME. Now Europe can't meet it's targets, oh boohoo, they got caught in their silly numbers game.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Look at Canada's population growth
January 17, 2007 - 17:49 ET by dscottIDB Summary Demographic Data for CanadaDemographic Indicators: 2005 and 2025
2005 2025
Births per 1,000 population.................... 11 10
Deaths per 1,000 population.................... 8 9
Rate of natural increase (percent)............. 0.3 0.1
Annual rate of growth (percent)................ 0.9 0.6
Life expectancy at birth (years)............... 80.1 82.2
Infant deaths per 1,000 live births............ 5 4
Total fertility rate (per woman)............... 1.6 1.7
Midyear Population Estimates and Average Annual Period Growth Rates:
1950 to 2050
(Population in thousands, rate in percent)
Growth
Year Population Year Population Period Rate
1950 14,011 2005 32,805 1950-1960 2.7
1960 18,267 2006 33,099 1960-1970 1.7
1970 21,750 2007 33,390 1970-1980 1.2
1980 24,593 2008 33,679 1980-1990 1.2
1990 27,791 2009 33,967 1990-2000 1.2
2000 31,278 2010 34,253 2000-2010 0.9
2001 31,593 2020 36,983 2010-2020 0.8
2002 31,902 2030 39,128 2020-2030 0.6
2003 32,207 2040 40,479 2030-2040 0.3
2004 32,508 2050 41,430 2040-2050 0.2
So from 1990 to 2000 Canada's population grew about 13% and from 1990 to 2005 they grew 18%. Ours won't be any different.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Indeed, Gary! If you want m
January 16, 2007 - 18:47 ET by UnsaneIndeed, Gary! If you want more chuckles, look up the story headlined "Interpreting Smoke Signals" from 20 July 2006 on economist.com (I would provide a link but I don't know if it is premium content or not; I have a print edition handy).
Why did the Canadians ratify it, I suspect? Because the United States didn't, and as all Canadian idnetity revolves around not being the United States, they HAD to do something non-American, especially if it makes them feel they have a bigger heart than the evil Americans south of them.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Kyoto
January 16, 2007 - 14:37 ET by Tom BlumerThis link says 156 nations:
http://politics.guar...