And she is not worried about letting those pesky human rights issues get in the way, either, as we already know
After eight years largely on the sidelines of the international policy debate on climate change, the United States is prepared to lead negotiations toward a new global warming treaty, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday.
“The United States is fully engaged and determined to lead and make up for lost time both at home and abroad,†Mrs. Clinton told delegates from 16 countries at a State Department conference on energy and climate. “We are back in the game.â€
Shouldn’t that be 11 years, since Hillary’s husband refused to sign Kyoto, because, as the 95-0 Senate voice vote showed, it would damage our economy for little to no gain? But, she is correct. It is a game. The United States’ target for CO2 reduction was to have been 7%, had we actually ratified it. In fact, it rose by 6.6% between 1997 and 2004, according to the US Dept. Of Energy. The Western EU countries saw theirs rise by 11.3%. All those countries ratified the Kyoto Protocol. And their economies suffered. As the American Thinker points out, emissions from non-signers rose 10%, while signers rose 21.1%, so, signing it was simply done to make countries look good, and nothing else.
The Kyoto accord, which was negotiated in 1997 by the United Nations and expires in 2012, set emissions targets for industrialized nations, but many have not met them. The United States never ratified the treaty, in part because it did not include growing economies like China and India.
And what was that other part, something about it resulting in “serious harm to the economy of the United States,” as the Byrd-Hagel Resolution pointed out. And, remind me, who was president in 1997? Some guy named Clinton. Who did not even submit Kyoto to the Senate for ratification. BTW, Al Gore signing it “symbolically” means zip. But, this is the narrative, that it is all Bush’s fault, and that the issue seemingly started on January 20, 2001. You can see it in this op-ed at the Washington Post from 2005.
The Bush admin basically had the same argument as Clinton, and rightly so. Joining would damage our economy. Funny thing is, we might as well have, since we did better then most signatory countries on CO2 reduction.
Speaking directly to representatives of developing nations, who are skeptical of the motives of the United States and other industrialized countries on the issue, Mrs. Clinton that the United States would not seek to limit the use of energy in the developing world but would help make it cleaner.
Apparently with fairy dust and unicorn droppings. And the point is not to destroy economies while reversing AGW, but simply to slow the process. How does that saying about the cart and the horse go?
Maybe Hillary should talk to her boss about the CO2 output from his plane while doing photo-ops. An average 747 flight from D.C. to NY roundtrip puts out around 236kg of CO2 per passenger. Of course, we do not know who were the passengers on the flight. Yet.
And, Obama plans on a quick flight to St. Louis for a photo-op and town hall on his 100th day. Guess reducing CO2 output is only for the average American, not our “royalty.”
Arctic sea ice growth finished the year in 2008 at the same level as 1979.
The oceans have been cooling since 2003.
Antarctic sea ice is growing, not shrinking.
Sea ice is growing at the fastest pace on record.
Greenland’s glaciers are stabilizing.
There are growing fears of a coming freeze worse than the ice age.
Alaskan Sea Glaciers are advancing for the first time in 250 years.
And, for the second straight year the Earth is, in fact, cooling… not warming.
Teach, once again, you’re demonstrating your ignorance on this subject. The Byrd-Hagel Resolution was voted on BEFORE the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, in an effort to help guide negotiations. This was not a vote against Kyoto. It was worded vaguely enough that everyone would vote for it.
During what time period? The EU published a report in 2008, stating that they are on track to EXCEED their obligation of an 8% reduction from 1990 emissions levels, and also establishing their own even more stringent emissions goals of a 20% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020.
No, actually, the countries who have reduced emissions have had similar growth to the US.
And who was in the majority in Congress? Republicans. And the Republicans made it absolutely clear to the Clinton administration that this was a dead issue. Clinton had no choice but to table it for a future administration to handle.
Yes, I can see how this would be confusing if you have no clue what you’re talking about. And I can see how you would have no clue when you ignore science, and duck and run from any and all rebuttals.
I’ve never seen anyone so stubbornly and consistently display their ignorance. I have repeatedly debunked this supposed evidence that global warming isn’t happening, but you just keep on. Good for you, Teach. Don’t let those pesky scientific facts get in your way.
Keep thinking that, little man, but, just remember, you and the other saps who believe it is Man’s fault rarely do anything to reduce your own CO2 output, just the same way that your leaders fail to do.
PS: why would I have a rational debate with someone whose primary method of debate is personal attacks, otherwise known as being an asshole?
The FACT of the matter is that YOU are the one who continues to ignore opposing information, especially that which is backed by sound scientific research. How is it, again, that I’m the “sap”? You are the one who holds tightly to an idea that you cannot and will not explain or defend.
You also continue to push the hypocrisy nonsense, without any specifics or evidence of any kind. I’ve asked you repeatedly to explain for me in detail how it is that I fall short of your expectations of my reductions in CO2 output, but you have continued to ignore this. I can only conclude, then, that you are simply blowing smoke, rather than stating a genuine concern you have.
OH, Puh-leeze!!!! First of all, I stated plenty actual arguments in my last comment, which you ONCE AGAIN refused to acknowledge. I tried many times in the past to be cordial with my rebuttals, but I’ve grown tired of your refusal to respond to my arguments, followed by your repeated regurgitation of the same debunked talking points.
Teach, I appreciate you allowing me the ability to continue to comment on your blog, but all you do is ignore my arguments, so it’s begun to feel more and more like a fruitless effort, at least insofar as trying to convince you of anything goes. So, I’ve taken to trying to goad you into researching answers and responding, but that’s not working, either. As a result, it seems that you’ve even more firmly entrenched yourself in the ideology of anti-science.
All I want is for you to engage me in a discussion on the issue. Respond to my rebuttals. If you do that, you’ll have to actually examine my argument versus what you know to be true. That’s all I want. I have done that. When I started out on this subject years ago, I was neutral, believe it or not. I examined both sides, and found the AGW side to be scientific and based on fact, while the skeptical arguments generally consisted more of straw man tactics and red herrings than scientific truths. Therefore, I truly believe that if anyone honestly evaluates the two sides, they’ll find that humans are indeed mostly to blame for warming. Now, this doesn’t mean that the earth will become like Venus, or that it life as we know it will end in 15 years. It just means that there is a great potential for climate-related hardships for our children and their children. I know it’s hard to visualize the threat, since it is delayed, but a firm grasp of the basics of climate science can help you understand this.
For now, I guess, my only consolation is that visitors to your blog will see my many unanswered comments on your AGW posts, and wonder why you couldn’t explain your views. A pattern begins to emerge, Teach. I just want you to be sure you know what you’re talking about. I’m not asking you to change your mind. I just want you to start by thinking about it. I’m also willing to consider your ideas, but you have to share them with me first (something you’ve been unwilling or unable to do thus far).
Please, Teach. Just respond to my arguments. That’s all I ask.