Thursday, September 06, 2007
Progress without Kyoto; Bush to Blame
Kyoto is a horrible protocol and the US, beginning with the Clinton-Gore administration, is and has been correct to ignore it. But it remains an issue that our President unfortunately feels compelled to address: Australian, Bush Vow Action on Warming - washingtonpost.com
“Bush and Howard have attacked the Kyoto treaty, with its binding goals for reducing emissions and its lack of mandatory limits for developing countries, as making no sense for their countries or the environment. That stance led to widespread international and domestic criticism. But as the politics of climate change shift in both countries -- with a consensus forming to battle a problem now seen as urgent -- so too have the public postures of Bush and Howard.”
Well, I think to the extent that there is a true “consensus”, it is only in the sense that much of the press now believes it to be an urgent problem as well as an excellent opportunity to verify their liberal street cred. But never mind all that , I want to highlight my favorite part of this article:
“Bush pointed out that the United States last year reduced overall greenhouse gas emissions while growing its economy -- a development that experts attributed to favorable weather and the marshaling of new technology unrelated to government initiatives.”
So, according to these never-named experts, our reduction last year doesn’t count because the weather – which, after all, is the reason we’re supposed to want to reduce these gases – was apparently pretty good and new technology – which, under Kyoto, the government would be forcing down our throats so as to improve the apparently already improving weather – was adopted outside of government coercion.
Exact same weather, exact same technology use, exact same results – only difference; John Kerry is President. Does that paragraph get written?
“Bush and Howard have attacked the Kyoto treaty, with its binding goals for reducing emissions and its lack of mandatory limits for developing countries, as making no sense for their countries or the environment. That stance led to widespread international and domestic criticism. But as the politics of climate change shift in both countries -- with a consensus forming to battle a problem now seen as urgent -- so too have the public postures of Bush and Howard.”
Well, I think to the extent that there is a true “consensus”, it is only in the sense that much of the press now believes it to be an urgent problem as well as an excellent opportunity to verify their liberal street cred. But never mind all that , I want to highlight my favorite part of this article:
“Bush pointed out that the United States last year reduced overall greenhouse gas emissions while growing its economy -- a development that experts attributed to favorable weather and the marshaling of new technology unrelated to government initiatives.”
So, according to these never-named experts, our reduction last year doesn’t count because the weather – which, after all, is the reason we’re supposed to want to reduce these gases – was apparently pretty good and new technology – which, under Kyoto, the government would be forcing down our throats so as to improve the apparently already improving weather – was adopted outside of government coercion.
Exact same weather, exact same technology use, exact same results – only difference; John Kerry is President. Does that paragraph get written?
