Here's what one of the founders of Greenpeace had to say:

"At least the United States is honest. They said, 'No we are not going to sign that thing because we can't do that,'" said Patrick Moore, who is attending the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal.

Moore noted that many of the industrialized nations that ratified the treaty limiting greenhouse gas emissions are now failing to comply with those emission limits. Moore, who currently heads the Canadian-based environmental advocacy group Greenspirit Strategies helped found both Greenpeace in 1971 and Greenpeace International in 1979.

"Canada signed [Kyoto] and said, 'Oh yeah, we can do that,' and then it merrily goes on its way to increase CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions by even more than the U.S.," Moore told Cybercast News Service."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200512%5 CNAT20051208a.html




Go back to the Kyoto discussions on this website. Some of us knew then it was an anti-US piece of tripe. Too bad the rest of the world didn't have the foresight that the Bush administration had.
(And by the way, the Clinton Administration ignored it, too)

Christ you're daft.

You just posted an article showing that other countries are failing to meet the Kyoto protocol then call it specifically "anti-US."

The Bush people are still intimidated by Clinton.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/15314/index.html

Where did you wingers find these whiners?

The Kyoto Protocol called for the United States to limit/lower its emissions, but not for other industrial nations, such as China. In the future, China will create more of these emissions than the US, and not be held accountable.

It's also anti-US because the limitations it attempted to put in place hurt the United States more than those other nations not so reliant on industry for its economic base.


Environmental policy is one of the issues upon which I disagree with the administration, but the environmental extremists allow no middle ground and alienate people who might otherwise agree with them.


(Guerilla, why are you so knee-jerk with the insults?)

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
The Bush people are still intimidated by Clinton.

Where did you wingers find these whiners?
Clinton will no doubt talk about the terrible record of the Bush administration in not signing on to the Kyoto Protocol, but here's the truth about President Clinton on this issue:

"In July 1999, the United States Senate voted 95-0 to pass a resolution co-sponsored by Sen. Byrd and Sen. Hagel, which stated the Senate would not ratify the Protocol unless rapidly developing countries such as China were included in its requirements to reduce greenhouse gases. The Clinton Administration announced it would not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification."
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/278.html


I still wonder what China had on Clinton.

Originally posted by Brooks
Clinton will no doubt talk about the terrible record of the Bush administration in not signing on to the Kyoto Protocol, but here's the truth about President Clinton on this issue:

"In July 1999, the United States Senate voted 95-0 to pass a resolution co-sponsored by Sen. Byrd and Sen. Hagel, which stated the Senate would not ratify the Protocol unless rapidly developing countries such as China were included in its requirements to reduce greenhouse gases. The Clinton Administration announced it would not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification."
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/278.html


I still wonder what China had on Clinton.

I'm not sure where the connection is in your statement.

You wrote that the Senate said they wouldn't pass the Protocol, so Clinton didn't bother sending it...how does this reflect badly on Clinton?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I'm not sure where the connection is in your statement.

You wrote that the Senate said they wouldn't pass the Protocol, so Clinton didn't bother sending it...how does this reflect badly on Clinton?

The Senate said they would pass the protocol if the strict standards were also applied to China. President Clinton refused to send it.

Originally posted by Brooks
The Senate said they would pass the protocol if the strict standards were also applied to China. President Clinton refused to send it. I still don't get it. When the Senate says it will not ratify a treaty as written, the treaty will not be ratified until it is re-written. Clinton could not unilaterally re-write a treaty signed by other nations. It would have to be re-negotiated with them. Why would Clinton send a treaty to a Senate that has said 95-0 that it will not ratify it? That would be dumb.

All that the Kyoto protocol would serve to do would be to restrict the capital that could otherwise be used to find an effective free market solution to the problem. That's progress with cleanliness.

The protocol restricts, but does not ban emmissions, therefore, if these environmental-collectivists truly believe that emissions harm the environment, all they are doing is forestalling an inevitable conclusion.

The other day while speaking at the conference, President Clinton recounted how strongly he felt about Kyoto, and that he helped author it. Why would he give up on it so easily and quickly?

He's ripping President Bush, but when he himself had his chance, President Clinton didn't even give it a half-hearted attempt.

He's having it both ways on this the way he did with the arsenic levels. Days before he left office, he lowered the levels unrealistically low, knowing the Bush Administration would have to raise them. Of course, President Clinton was hailed for lowering them (not during his own administration), and President Bush was criticized.

Originally posted by Brooks
The other day while speaking at the conference, President Clinton recounted how strongly he felt about Kyoto, and that he helped author it. Why would he give up on it so easily and quickly? Because it clearly would not have been ratified. You are upset that he did not do something that was politically stupid. That's irrational.

Originally posted by Brooks
The Senate said they would pass the protocol if the strict standards were also applied to China.

Wonderful reasoning Congress...don't put restrictions on the emissions and other pollutants produced by industry that harm the enviroment because our Chinese counterparts refuse to do likewise, so now the planet suffers more than it would because we are too pig-headed since China "won't play fair". There are other methods that could go into work for Washington to coerce Beijing into the agreement with us.

Originally posted by Brooks
The other day while speaking at the conference, President Clinton recounted how strongly he felt about Kyoto, and that he helped author it. Why would he give up on it so easily and quickly?

It was a time of economic growth at the hands of the corporations and Congress was controlled by Republicans, I think he can put down his boxing gloves for that round...that's like Woody Allen versus Muhammad Ali when it comes to persuasion.

He's ripping President Bush

Because he "felt strongly about it" and wants the President to use his power to make the decision he failed to get done.

He's having it both ways on this the way he did with the arsenic levels. Days before he left office, he lowered the levels unrealistically low, knowing the Bush Administration would have to raise them.

Perhaps a political trick, but that doesn't mean it is a negative action---lowering pollution levels of a substance like arsenic is a positive for us.

Of course, President Clinton was hailed for lowering them (not during his own administration), and President Bush was criticized.

Because he lowered them and Bush raised them, simple.

Originally posted by Evakian
Perhaps a political trick, but that doesn't mean it is a negative action---lowering pollution levels of a substance like arsenic is a positive for us.

Because he lowered them and Bush raised them, simple.
Maybe I didn't explain the arsenic thing well. President Clinton was perfectly content with arsenic at certain levels during his presidency. Based on pollution versus industrial impact (read-economy), he made his decision.

Just before he left office he lowered them unrealistically. Do you actually think he did that as a "positive for us" or for political motivations. If "us" meant that much to him, why did he wait?

Originally posted by sedan
You are upset that he did not do something that was politically stupid. That's irrational.
So.... then..... it meant a lot to him, but not enough to risk any political capital. I get it now.

Many on this board criticize President Bush for continuing with the war despite the poll numbers. I guess we all just miss the good old days when the country was run by polls.-

Originally posted by Brooks
The other day while speaking at the conference, President Clinton recounted how strongly he felt about Kyoto, and that he helped author it. Why would he give up on it so easily and quickly?

A very good point, Brooks, and one that IMO would be nigh impossible to refute.

Being the good Republican (in Democratic clothing, of course) that he was, he was not ABOUT to allow the U.S. to act in a rational manner and agree to do something substantive about halting the destruction of the global environment.

Originally posted by Brooks
It's obvious that Clinton did NOT really want the Kyoto treaty to be signed by the US.
He's ripping President Bush, but when he himself had his chance, President Clinton didn't even give it a half-hearted attempt.

Again, an unassailable point. And I mean that in all seriousness. It's obvious that Clinton and the powers-that-be didn't want the US to be a signatory to the treaty.

Originally posted by Brooks
Days before he left office, (Clinton) lowered the levels unrealistically low, knowing the Bush Administration would have to raise them.

<gasp!!!!!!>

How fiendishly clever of Bill Clinton to THINK OF such a thing!!!..........knowing the irreconcilable predicament he would place poor Mr Bush in!!!!

Ooooooooh.......how diabolical the evil Klinton was.

Why!......Klinton must have realized just how deeply, deeply concerned Mr Bush's supporters would be when he was forced ---FORCED!!--- to raise the allowable levels of arsenic, and what a horrific political backlash he'd suffer!!

OH!!........the humanity!!!