SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: bentway who wrote (66428)5/19/2006 1:29:49 PM
From: miraje  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
He COULD have sent a representative to Koyoto to negotiate a position for the US

Talk about a straw man... Bush wasn't even in office when Kyoto was negotiated.

en.wikipedia.org

...On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98)[2], 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. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations CNN. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

The Clinton Administration released an economic analysis in July 1998, prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors, which concluded that with emissions trading among the Annex B/Annex I countries, and participation of key developing countries in the "Clean Development Mechanism" — which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions rates through 2012 — the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol could be reduced as much as 60% from many estimates. Other economic analyses, however, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and the Department of Energy Energy Information Administration (EIA), and others, demonstrated a potentially large decline in GDP from implementing the Protocol...



To: bentway who wrote (66428)5/19/2006 1:54:43 PM
From: JeffA  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
It was structured such that the US would have had severe problems meeting it. You know, like Canada who did sign and now flat out admits they can't meet the standards. If these nations can't meet the criteria, how would a third world meet them?

Why play along with something you have no intent on honoring or following. The RIGHT thing to do was to say we are not going along with it in any way, shape or form and then back it up. Which is what was done.