I’m Hot Under the Collar Due to Global Warming

I have written before about how I view the Kyoto Accords specifically and plans to reduce global warming in general with a great deal of suspicion. First you have to get every single country in the world to sign on (impossible), and then you have to figure out a way to enforce the agreement if any country decides to ignore the treaty (double impossible).

According to this news item, India is telling it like it is. Their delegate to a UN conference on climate change currently being held in Bonn said that priority one was combating the crushing poverty under which a significant portion of India’s population suffers. The admission is that only way to do that is to increase emissions and pollution, not reduce them.

The Indian delegate, of course, tried to deflect criticism by calling on “rich nations” to take the lead on reducing pollution. Read between the lines and industrialized nations are supposed to cripple their own economy while India builds up their own. I have a hard time envisioning any government forcing even a portion of their currently middle-class population into poverty just so developing nations can lift up their own downtrodden masses.

What is completely disingenuous is how the author portrays the position of the United States.

U.S. chief climate negotiator Harlan Watson reiterated that Washington has no plans to rejoin Kyoto, which President George W. Bush quit in 2001, saying it would cost jobs and wrongly excluded developing nations from a first round.

(Emphasis mine. – James)

Thanks to the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, the US never signed on to Kyoto in the first place. How can you “quit” or “rejoin” something that you had nothing to do with from the first?

Can someone explain to me how this isn’t a vicious, bald-faced lie intended to smear the US and our President?

12 thoughts on “I’m Hot Under the Collar Due to Global Warming”

  1. He could have referred to it as the treaty “that the US Senate rejected 95 to zip” but I’m dreaming.

    Hey, I’ve got some windmills for you, cheap!

  2. There is a second possibility: the “journalist” is simply regurgitating the story he’s heard propagandized to him a thousand times. Meaning, of course, our intrepid reporter for a lefty news service has no f*cking clue what he’s talking about. Imagine that. Hard to believe, isn’t it?

    So he’s either lying or clueless. Gives one pause when you consider millions of people get their worldview shaped by these “news” providers.

  3. Just a clarification: You mentioned “…the US never signed on to Kyoto in the first place.” That’s not true. The United States is a signatory to the Kyoto protocol. The Byrd-Hagel Resolution did nothing to change this fact. But signing an international treaty really means very little, it only becomes “binding” after it’s ratified. Neither the Clinton administration nor the Bush administration submitted the treaty to the Senate for ratification. (One likely reason the Clinton administion didn’t submit it for ratification is the Byrd-Hagel Resolution. It certainly expressed a an unfriendly feeling toward ratification.) Additionally, as far as I know the Bush administration despite their objections to the protocol has not removed the US’s signature. I have no idea what event the journalist that you quoted is referring to when he says the Bush quit Kyoto it in 2001. Perhaps he thinks Clinton had made more of a good faith effort? I dunno about that.

    It’s nice to see people writing about somewhat current events again on this blog!

  4. That’s weird, sorry my comment got posted twice. Anyway, it’s nice to see you guys writing about somewhat current events again!

    [Fixed! JG]

  5. There is an even better, politically correct excuse for why the U.S. can never sign the Kyoto treaty. Under a current Senate immigration reform bill (S. 1622) we will receive up to 100 million immigrants from various third world countries over the next 20 years. We have to be exempt from the Kyoto treaty because we need the additional economic growth to provide jobs for all of these new immigrants!

  6. 100? I thought now it was around 500,000 a year of new workers. Right now we have, what, 10-12 million, accumulated over the last fifteen years?

  7. IIRC, Clinton signed the treaty in the waning days of his administration. He knew that the treaty was not going to be approved by the Senate. He did it just to embarass President Bush and give aid and comfort to our countries enemies. Yet another reason why he was the second worst President of the 20th Century.

  8. Ginney,

    We get about 1 million immigrants per year, both legal and illegal. There is a Senate bill (S.1622) called the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act that would immediately increase the number of legal immigrants to 2 million per year, as well as allowing all of the family members of the immigrants in as well. It is believed that the effect of this bill will be to allow up to 100 million legal immigrants over the next 25 years.

  9. Kurt,
    Can you provide a link to this study indicating such a drastic leap in immigration. Presumably, the increase is supposed to be in immigration from Mexico. Mexico has a population of 106 million: World Factbook. Are we really going to depopulate the place? Or is the study to which you refer suggesting other sources for the predicted influx?

Comments are closed.