Europe misses Kyoto targets

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Fencer128

IT was the senate in 1997 that rejected Kyoto 99-0. It is amazing how Bush is blamed for this rejection and he was not even in office.

So what was I watching a while back (2001/2002?) when the US negitiator got pelted with eggs (or was it cake?) and half the world's diplomats were up all night (including the deput prime minister) trying to push a deal? That wasn't 1997.

Cheers,

Andy

I dont know what you watched, but thisis what happened.

You can fault Bush for not pushing Kyoto, but considering the previous admin failed with a 95-0 senate vote to adopt it, it seems to be a dead issue.

Please see my link in my post above - then get back to me.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: shinerburke


-What year was the baseline for kyoto set? I don't know... who cares?
-What year did England move from coal to nat. gas for the majority of it's electrical generation? I don't know... who cares?
-What year did the two Germany's reunite and what was the shape of W. Germany's infrastructure and what did the use for fuel? 1990... who cares?

So what you are saying in answer to all those questions is that you don't know nor do you care to find out. Last time I checked when someone says they don't know nor do they care it means they don't presently know the answer and don't care to find it out. Isn't that the same thing as not wanting to learn?

I said "who cares?" because I don't see how it effects the treaty or America. In all honesty I want to know who really cares about these items as it relates to our position and Kyoto. Who (what person or organization) cares (has interests in or tied to)?

You don't see how it effects the treaty because you are completely unaware of the answers to the questions he asked. It's quite simple, the EU picked a year in which their emissions were maximized to allow their targets to be easily attainable without economic impact. They gave no such consideration to the US. That is called stacking the deck and what you orginally protested had not happened and then rejected any desire to learn about the actual treaty. You choose not to participate in the discussion because it was too much work. I suggest you continue with that path and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Thanks....couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Fencer128

IT was the senate in 1997 that rejected Kyoto 99-0. It is amazing how Bush is blamed for this rejection and he was not even in office.

So what was I watching a while back (2001/2002?) when the US negitiator got pelted with eggs (or was it cake?) and half the world's diplomats were up all night (including the deput prime minister) trying to push a deal? That wasn't 1997.

Cheers,

Andy

I dont know what you watched, but thisis what happened.

You can fault Bush for not pushing Kyoto, but considering the previous admin failed with a 95-0 senate vote to adopt it, it seems to be a dead issue.

Please see my link in my post above - then get back to me.

Cheers,

Andy

What link in what post?

Do you deny that kyoto was rejected 95-0 to nothing by the senate during the previous administration?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Fencer128

IT was the senate in 1997 that rejected Kyoto 99-0. It is amazing how Bush is blamed for this rejection and he was not even in office.

So what was I watching a while back (2001/2002?) when the US negitiator got pelted with eggs (or was it cake?) and half the world's diplomats were up all night (including the deput prime minister) trying to push a deal? That wasn't 1997.

Cheers,

Andy

I dont know what you watched, but thisis what happened.

You can fault Bush for not pushing Kyoto, but considering the previous admin failed with a 95-0 senate vote to adopt it, it seems to be a dead issue.

Please see my link in my post above - then get back to me.

Cheers,

Andy

What link in what post?

Do you deny that kyoto was rejected 95-0 to nothing by the senate during the previous administration?

I see it now, and it appears the BBC is just wrong. The senate has never passed kyoto, so there is no way we could have left the treaty as we never entered into it.

 

[Fencer128]

What link in what post?

Do you deny that kyoto was rejected 95-0 to nothing by the senate during the previous administration?

Whilst you were replying to one of my posts - I found a link confirming what happened in 2001. Hereit is.

I quote from the BBC article:

After the US pulled out in March 2001, the treaty was left shattered. A compromise was reached four months later, with nearly 180 nations opting for a scaled-down version of the treaty, but President Bush has stated that the US will never sign it.

I do not deny it was previously voted down 95-0 by the senate. I do insist as I stated way back that:

"...Bush dismissed Kyoto..."

Because he did. We can argue about the merit/validity of the protocol if you like - but that IMHO is a fact.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

I see it now, and it appears the BBC is just wrong. The senate has never passed kyoto, so there is no way we could have left the treaty as we never entered into it.

If you check this link to the official pdf, you'll see that the US signed up to the Kyoto treaty but never ratified it. Not ratifying is what the BBC means by "pulling out". Sounds ok to me.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

What link in what post?

Do you deny that kyoto was rejected 95-0 to nothing by the senate during the previous administration?

Whilst you were replying to one of my posts - I found a link confirming what happened in 2001. Hereit is.

I quote from the BBC article:

After the US pulled out in March 2001, the treaty was left shattered. A compromise was reached four months later, with nearly 180 nations opting for a scaled-down version of the treaty, but President Bush has stated that the US will never sign it.

I do not deny it was previously voted down 95-0 by the senate. I do insist as I stated way back that:

"...Bush dismissed Kyoto..."

Because he did. We can argue about the merit/validity of the protocol if you like - but that IMHO is a fact.

Cheers,

Andy

It is also an undisputable fact that the senate is responsable for passing treaties in the US. Kyoto never got passed by the senate in the US. The senate completely rejected the treaty 95-0. This means every every democrat and every republican voted against it. This would not have passed the senate no matter who was president.

Are you willing to agree that kyoto was dead in the US long before Bush became president, because that is an undeniable fact.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
If you check this link to the official pdf, you'll see that the US signed up to the Kyoto treaty but never ratified it. Not ratifying is what the BBC means by "pulling out". Sounds ok to me.

Cheers,

Andy

Signing and ratifying are two different things. Just because it was signed by the President does force us to abide by it. The framers of the Constitution did that on purpose to keep the President from joining alliances, etc?at his own whim. Clinton signed it because he knew it would look good on the world stage but that he would never have to live by it since the Senate would never ratify it. Pretty shrewd political move on his part.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

I see it now, and it appears the BBC is just wrong. The senate has never passed kyoto, so there is no way we could have left the treaty as we never entered into it.

If you check this link to the official pdf, you'll see that the US signed up to the Kyoto treaty but never ratified it. Not ratifying is what the BBC means by "pulling out". Sounds ok to me.

Cheers,

Andy

Well the BBC obviously knows nothing about our constitution. We cannot join a treaty without senate approval. If the senate did not ratify a treaty, we cant exit a treaty we did not join.

 

[Fencer128]

It is also an undisputable fact that the senate is responsable for passing treaties in the US. Kyoto never got passed by the senate in the US. The senate completely rejected the treaty 95-0. This means every every democrat and every republican voted against it. This would not have passed the senate no matter who was president.

Are you willing to agree that kyoto was dead in the US long before Bush became president, because that is an undeniable fact.

I agree completely that it would not have passed in its then form - and that Bush killed it off completely by outright refusing to ratify. However, this does not mean that more effort could not have been put in to hammer out a solution. It is the furture of the whole planet we're talking about. I don't believe there was nearly as much diplomatic effort as there was say for the Iraq war (not really wishing to bring that into this - but it was the biggest example).

Signing and ratifying are two different things. Just because it was signed by the President does force us to abide by it. The framers of the Constitution did that on purpose to keep the President from joining alliances, etc?at his own whim. Clinton signed it because he knew it would look good on the world stage but that he would never have to live by it since the Senate would never ratify it. Pretty shrewd political move on his part.

I know they are different things. I only mentioned it specifically to highlight what I imagine the BBC meant by "pulling out" in their article. I don't see how you can have the knowledge you claim about why Clinton signed the treaty - though obviously your explaination is as good as any other.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

It is also an undisputable fact that the senate is responsable for passing treaties in the US. Kyoto never got passed by the senate in the US. The senate completely rejected the treaty 95-0. This means every every democrat and every republican voted against it. This would not have passed the senate no matter who was president.

Are you willing to agree that kyoto was dead in the US long before Bush became president, because that is an undeniable fact.

I agree completely that it would not have passed in its then form - and that Bush killed it off completely by outright refusing to ratify. However, this does not mean that more effort could not have been put in to hammer out a solution. It is the furture of the whole planet we're talking about. I don't believe there was nearly as much diplomatic effort as there was say for the Iraq war (not really wishing to bring that into this - but it was the biggest example).

Signing and ratifying are two different things. Just because it was signed by the President does force us to abide by it. The framers of the Constitution did that on purpose to keep the President from joining alliances, etc?at his own whim. Clinton signed it because he knew it would look good on the world stage but that he would never have to live by it since the Senate would never ratify it. Pretty shrewd political move on his part.

I know they are different things. I only mentioned it specifically to highlight what I imagine the BBC meant by "pulling out" in their article. I don't see how you can have the knowledge you claim about why Clinton signed the treaty - though obviously your explaination is as good as any other.

Cheers,

Andy

I am going to say this one more time.

The president of the US is not responsable for ratifying treaties, the senate is. The senate rejected this treaty before Bush came into office.

1. How is this the fault of Bush when this happen 2 years before he came to office.
2. How can Bush ratify a treaty when he does not have the power to do so.

 

[Fencer128]

Well the BBC obviously knows nothing about our constitution. We cannot join a treaty without senate approval. If the senate did not ratify a treaty, we cant exit a treaty we did not join.

Why are you all argueing semantics? Tell me what is the correct term for refusing to ratify a treaty you are a signatory to? withdrawing? pulling out? disassociating? the article is trying to show (and very simply IMHO) that the US signed a treaty (which wouldn't have happened at all if they were not seriously interested in it) and then decided not to be involved after all. I feel you look for malintent where there is none.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Well the BBC obviously knows nothing about our constitution. We cannot join a treaty without senate approval. If the senate did not ratify a treaty, we cant exit a treaty we did not join.

Why are you all argueing semantics? Tell me what is the correct term for refusing to ratify a treaty you are a signatory to? withdrawing? pulling out? disassociating? the article is trying to show (and very simply IMHO) that the US signed a treaty (which wouldn't have happened at all if they were not seriously interested in it) and then decided not to be involved after all. I feel you look for malintent where there is none.

Cheers,

Andy

Clinton signed a document he had no authority to sign. That sums it up.

 

[SnapIT]

Well, my country is on track, the rest of the EU can do what they want... People often forget that the EU isn't ONE country but a lot of countries, it's like saying america and talking about south, latin and north america, it just doesn't work that way...

EU is a trade organization, maybe in the future a monetary organization but it will not become more, not for us anyway, we reject most of the presented stuff and have every right to do so...

 

[etech]

Fencer, you are trying to imply that the US signed up to follow the treaty. That never happened. The US signed up to try and hammer out a treaty with other nations to lower the emissions of green house gases. Due to the way the other nations manipulated that treaty it was never going to be ratified by the US Senate. Pres. Bush realized the futility of trying to salvage that mess and the reality that the Senate would never sign it and decided to move on and stop wasting time on it. That is all.

 

[Fencer128]

I am going to say this one more time.

The president of the US is not responsable for ratifying treaties, the senate is. The senate rejected this treaty before Bush came into office.

1. How is this the fault of Bush when this happen 2 years before he came to office.
2. How can Bush ratify a treaty when he does not have the power to do so.

I think you are not reading my words carefully enough. One more time for me too.

1. I know roughly how your system of government works and enough to know presidential limitations.

2. I know that Bush could not pass what the senate would not allow.

3. I know that the senate previously refused to ratify the treaty.

4. I know that the US (clinton) did sign up to the treaty.

5. I know that negotiations took place to attempt to change the treaty so the US/Bush/Senate would find it acceptable.

6. I know that Bush pulled the negotiators out of the treaty negotiations (ie ultimately it was he who dismissed any potential for US involvement).

7. IMHO not nearly enough effort was made to reach a comprimise solution (well one that actually made the whole process worthwhile).

I don't see how that is ambiguous. I see it as a statement of fact.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Clinton signed a document he had no authority to sign. That sums it up.

How defensive is this? I'm trying to state facts and all I get is:

"Bush is not responsible for what he is technically responsible for" and "It was the other guys fault that he was responsible?!"

Is it actually true that Clinton had no authority to sign that? Is he going to be prosocuted for it now?

Fencer, you are trying to imply that the US signed up to follow the treaty. That never happened. The US signed up to try and hammer out a treaty with other nations to lower the emissions of green house gases. Due to the way the other nations manipulated that treaty it was never going to be ratified by the US Senate. Pres. Bush realized the futility of trying to salvage that mess and the reality that the Senate would never sign it and decided to move on and stop wasting time on it. That is all.

I am trying to show (not imply) that the US signed up to a treaty and then your president decided that no further attempt at ratification would be made after some (IMHO limited) negotiations. If I have any beef it is with the duration and seriousness (or not) of the negotiations - nothing more.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[etech]

If I have any beef it is with the duration and seriousness (or not) of the negotiations - nothing more.

What year did they start trying to hammer out the agreement?

How long was long enough to realize that it would never pass the Senate the way it had turned out?

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

I am going to say this one more time.

The president of the US is not responsable for ratifying treaties, the senate is. The senate rejected this treaty before Bush came into office.

1. How is this the fault of Bush when this happen 2 years before he came to office.
2. How can Bush ratify a treaty when he does not have the power to do so.

I think you are not reading my words carefully enough. One more time for me too.

1. I know roughly how your system of government works and enough to know presidential limitations.

2. I know that Bush could not pass what the senate would not allow.

3. I know that the senate previously refused to ratify the treaty.

4. I know that the US (clinton) did sign up to the treaty.

5. I know that negotiations took place to attempt to change the treaty so the US/Bush/Senate would find it acceptable.

6. I know that Bush pulled the negotiators out of the treaty negotiations (ie ultimately it was he who dismissed any potential for US involvement).

7. IMHO not nearly enough effort was made to reach a comprimise solution (well one that actually made the whole process worthwhile).

I don't see how that is ambiguous. I see it as a statement of fact.

Cheers,

Andy

I couldn't have said it better myself... cheers to you Andy!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

I am going to say this one more time.

The president of the US is not responsable for ratifying treaties, the senate is. The senate rejected this treaty before Bush came into office.

1. How is this the fault of Bush when this happen 2 years before he came to office.
2. How can Bush ratify a treaty when he does not have the power to do so.

I think you are not reading my words carefully enough. One more time for me too.

1. I know roughly how your system of government works and enough to know presidential limitations.

2. I know that Bush could not pass what the senate would not allow.

3. I know that the senate previously refused to ratify the treaty.

4. I know that the US (clinton) did sign up to the treaty.

5. I know that negotiations took place to attempt to change the treaty so the US/Bush/Senate would find it acceptable.

6. I know that Bush pulled the negotiators out of the treaty negotiations (ie ultimately it was he who dismissed any potential for US involvement).

7. IMHO not nearly enough effort was made to reach a comprimise solution (well one that actually made the whole process worthwhile).

I don't see how that is ambiguous. I see it as a statement of fact.

Cheers,

Andy

Could Bush have spent more time on it? Sure, but it was a dead issue and it got rightly dropped.

Kyoto not passing the senate is not the fault the Bush. The countries that adopting kyoto can still go by its guidelines and we can go by ours. If the EU can cost effectivitly cuts emmissions you will have the right to say "I told you so" and you can watch the US be a late adopter.


Meanwhile people in the US continue to us more cleaner energy and adopt energy saving devices.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: etech

If I have any beef it is with the duration and seriousness (or not) of the negotiations - nothing more.

What year did they start trying to hammer out the agreement?

How long was long enough to realize that it would never pass the Senate the way it had turned out?

IMHO the serious talking started at the March 2001 face to face meeting of signatories . That lasted a couple of days and ended with the US refusual to continue. We'll never know for sure (as I don't expect there are any records about what was said) but IMHO (and this bit is my own speculation/opinion/paranoia/whatever) the amount of time spent negotiating this around a table with everyone else was extremely short. Too short for any meaningful attempt to get agreement on such an important issue. I believe that the ramifications of any meaningful deal would mean the US would have to make fairly large socio-economic changes - changes the electorate would not like even if they could handle it financially/socially. Bigger than this though in my eyes is the conflict of interest that appears to me between Bush, his family and his advisors with regard to oil/energy and the impact of any deal to curb emissions.

Because of these two factors - right or wrong - I feel these are the real underlying reasons that the negotiations were so "short". BTW, before people leap onto the EU/member countries are failing to meet their targets - it should first be noted that some countries are on course and secondly, that I do not condone underhandedness by any government - least of all my own. Finally, it cannot pass without notice that for the planet's sake, Kyoto without the US (given that, yes, it is responsible for ~1/3 of the world's CO2 emissions and is the world's wealthiest economy/country) is a sham of a document before any fudging goes on by other countries.

Now you know my personal views too!

Cheers,

Andy

EDIT: Off to bed now - catch up with you all tomorrow. Good night all!

 

[etech]

Nice way to ignore over ten years of negoations leading up to that meeting.

One of the main reasons Kyoto was a sham was the fact that it ignored India and China completely.

 

[Jadow]

ahh, spending billions of dollars on junk science. WTG EU!

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: etech
Nice way to ignore over ten years of negoations leading up to that meeting.

One of the main reasons Kyoto was a sham was the fact that it ignored India and China completely.

I didn't mean to ingore them (though I guess I did) - I just think when your dealing with emissions policy over a scale of 10 years - IMHO things are only going to get properly hammered out over the last few anxious hours. Especially when you consider changes of government, new energy technology, increased populations and fluctuating economies. Whatever has been said is going to change right up until the deal is done.

With regard to the India/China arguement I'm a little more ambiguous. No doubt they pollute - but I do not know how best to tackle them (I'm missing information).

How much do they pollute?

How will implemnting proposed (US say) changes affect the standard of living of the most vulnerable (will it push people into severe poverty or deny them what we would consider basic necessities because their government cannot afford to compromise on both).

I really do not know the answers to these. I do know (well guess) these countries have a lot more to worry about than those in the US and so their must certainly be some bias applied. Especially (and I guess you believe this too) when you get to third world/developing countries.

Cheers (and really good night this time!),

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Jadow
ahh, spending billions of dollars on junk science. WTG EU!

You have to back up your accusations. Can you post a link please.

Cheers,

Andy