Posted on 09/28/2004 7:15:28 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/05/24/heinz_kerry_has_an_ecology_agenda/
May 24, 2004
PITTSBURGH -- Teresa Heinz was in a potentially awkward position when she became an outspoken environmental activist nearly two decades ago. She served as a board member of Environmental Defense at the same time that her husband, Senator John Heinz, was supported by the United Mine Workers. A clash seemed likely when the environmental group began pushing for clean air legislation opposed by many coal workers in Pennsylvania.
But behind the scenes, Teresa Heinz helped persuade her husband to support a clean air provision proposed by Environmental Defense, enabling polluters to trade so-called ''emission credits" with companies that reduced pollutants more than the law required, and her husband became one of the most important Republican votes for passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act. Then, just before John Heinz died in a plane crash in 1991, one of his last conversations with his wife concerned their plan to use part of the family fortune on environmental efforts. Her foundations have since poured nearly $200 million into an array of environmental causes, including large sums to help Pittsburgh become an environmental model for the nation.
Now, with her second husband, Senator John F. Kerry, running for president, Teresa Heinz Kerry again is asserting herself on environmental issues, partly because of her belief that the Bush administration is undoing the clean air law that her first husband -- and the first President Bush -- helped pass. In a series of speeches, including one earlier this month, Heinz Kerry has said it is ''a sin against humankind" that the current Bush administration has rolled back environmental policy on clean air and water.
In a statement to the Globe, Heinz Kerry sought to explain that view by providing a contrast between her work in cooperation with President George H. W. Bush on the Clean Air Act and the Kyoto accord on global warming, and her belief that President George W. Bush is undercutting both efforts. ''A sin against humankind is allowing something that no person or community or even a country can protect itself against by acting alone," said Heinz Kerry, who plans to continue overseeing her charitable foundations if her husband is elected president………………………………………
Global Warming: Cutting Through the Fog of the Bonn Agreement
July 25, 2001
THIRTY SECOND RESPONSE: President Bush was absolutely right to refuse to sign an agreement for which the terms have yet to be decided. Such an agreement has great potential for making the already-disastrous Kyoto Protocol, provisions of which were rejected by the Senate in a 95-0 vote in 1997, even worse. This "agreement without substance" seems to be designed solely to pressure the U.S. to agree to a treaty that would wreck our economy and put Americans out of work.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR72501c.html
_______________________________________________
Quixotic Climate Vote In Senate
WASHINGTON, Oct. 30, 2003
(CBS/AP) The Senate prepared to make a largely symbolic vote on global warming, capping a polarized two-day debate on a bill designed to reduce industrial carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
The two chief sponsors of the legislation, Sens. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, acknowledged that their bill likely would be defeated. They characterized it as the opening shot in what will be a lengthy effort to get Congress to address human-caused climate change.
"This president really is fiddling while the globe is warming," Lieberman, a Democratic presidential candidate, said of President Bush's emphasis on global climate change research rather than steps to reduce emissions. "Environmental protection and economic growth are not mutually exclusive, they are mutually enforcing."
The White House said it strongly opposed the bill because it would require "deep and immediate cuts in fossil fuel use" to meet an "arbitrary" goal, and drive up household energy bills and gas pump prices.
"These increases in energy prices would effectively operate as a tax on American consumers and would have a severe negative impact on job creation," the White House said in a statement.
Republican Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri told senators the bill would cripple the U.S. economy. "Now is not the time to place more burden on our families and our communities," he said.
McCain, who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, forced the debate and vote to the Senate floor by promising he wouldn't block a major energy bill that has been stalled in Congress.
Many of the global warming bill's supporters, who aim to win, at minimum, between 20 and 40 votes in the 100-member Senate, pin their hopes on McCain.
"This is a big battle, but we'll win over time," McCain told The Associated Press Tuesday. "Because climate change is real. And we will overcome the influence of the special interests over time."
It will be the first such vote since the Senate voted 95-0 in 1997 to reject many of the principles behind an international climate treaty negotiated in Kyoto, Japan. The treaty was signed later that year by then-Vice President Al Gore but the Senate never ratified it………..
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/30/tech/main580915.shtml
Global Warming Bill Defeated in Senate
Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: November 21, 2003
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
Senate legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions-the first of its kind since the Senate unanimously rejected the Kyoto Protocol in 1997-was defeated on October 30 by a vote of 55-43. The defeat of the bill, sponsored by John McCain (R-Arizona) and Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut), came despite significant last-minute weakening of the bill in an attempt to attract more supporters.
McCain attempted to rally support for the bill by suggesting recent weather events provided evidence global warming was already occurring. He displayed pictures of Glacier National Park as it existed in the 1930s and as it exists today, claiming those photos documented the effects of global warming. He also argued that melting polar ice caps and wildfires burning in Southern California were further evidence of warming.
Science Trumps Anecdotes
McCain's assertions were discredited by Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma). The anecdotes offered by McCain, Inhofe said, were no match for the 17,800 scientists who have signed a letter concluding there is "no convincing scientific evidence" that human activity is causing significant climate change……………..
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=13691
Europe and Japan misread Kerry on Kyoto
April 5, 2004
Global warming
WASHINGTON Is Senator John Kerry the answer to European and Japanese prayers on global warming? Perhaps, but contrary to international expectations, President Kerry would not get the United States into the Kyoto Protocol.
. When it comes to the environment, President George W. Bush and John Kerry are like oil and water. The environment is a bottom-rung priority for Bush, while Kerry has the greenest voting record in the U.S. Senate and speaks passionately about global warming. On the campaign trail, Kerry characterizes Bush's unilateral rejection of Kyoto as evidence of the Texan's high-handed, shortsighted and arrogant foreign policy. Kerry's new environmental plan states flatly that "John Kerry will reinsert the United States into international climate negotiations." Little wonder European and Japanese politicians are counting on Kerry to revive U.S. support for Kyoto. But those hopes are misplaced.
. First, the United States could not comply with the Kyoto requirements even if it tried. Kyoto would require the United States to reduce its climate emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. U.S. emissions are already more than 12 percent above 1990 levels and are rising with no end in site. Even U.S. environmentalists who believed Kyoto's U.S. target was achievable in 1997 concede that it is beyond reach today.
. Second, even a watered-down version of Kyoto would have a difficult time in Congress during a Kerry presidency. The U.S. Constitution requires two-thirds of the Senate to approve treaties. Just last fall, a majority of senators rejected a bipartisan climate-change proposal sponsored by two former presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, despite the fact that the bill was far less ambitious than Kyoto. Although some version of the McCain-Lieberman bill might pass the Senate in a few years, securing the two-thirds majority needed for ratification of a new climate treaty would take longer. Navigating the more hostile House of Representatives - whose approval is essential for implementing legislation needed to give treaties teeth - would be an even larger challenge. In the House, opposition to action on climate change has been a badge of honor for conservatives, who are expected to solidify their control over that body in November regardless of who wins the White House.
. Third, Kerry himself says that he will advance "alternatives to Kyoto" after the United States enacts comprehensive domestic climate-change regulation, including rules for a new domestic financial market for emission credits. Kerry understands that the Senate rarely approves international agreements, particularly environmental treaties, unless they are based on prior domestic action. The international agreement to repair the "ozone hole," which the United States joined easily, for example, was modeled on a pre-existing U.S. law. Kyoto, however, was an international solution imported before the development of a consensus national policy. Little wonder it became a political piñata. Chalk it up to American hegemony, leadership or arrogance, as you please, but the United States tends to treat international pressure to ratify treaties that diverge from U.S. laws the way most people handle spam e-mail - by ignoring it. .
Europe and Japan should continue prodding the United States toward a more responsible climate policy, but counting on the United States returning to the Kyoto bargaining table is not the best approach. What should they do instead? Foremost, they must meet their global warming commitments, regardless of whether Russia ratifies Kyoto and thereby brings the treaty to life. Despite grumblings from some quarters, Europe and, to a lesser extent, Japan are on the verge of adopting meaningful and farsighted market-oriented climate strategies. Following through on promises to reduce emissions would symbolize European and Japanese political commitment to the global environment and demonstrate to U.S. industry that fighting climate change can be affordable.
. Second, Europe and Japan should press the United States to regulate carbon and other greenhouse gases under U.S. domestic law. America's domestic action matters more than its international promises.
. Third, Europe and Japan should challenge the United States to increase funding for international clean-energy research and development programs and for engaging major developing countries by pledging to match any new U.S. climate change expenditures (beyond what Bush has already announced) up to an additional $10 billion a year. These programs help fight global warming by creating a new generation of cleaner, more efficient automobiles and electricity power plants at home and abroad. Any of these steps would influence U.S. policy more than pleas to rejoin what many Americans view as a slow and politically tainted United Nations negotiating process.
. On global warming, Bush is on the wrong side of history. Europe is not, but its focus on the Kyoto process as the vehicle for engaging the United States is unhelpful. While the climate policies of the United States would improve with a Kerry presidency, Kyoto is not in the cards for the United States, regardless of who sits in the White House. Europe should move ahead with its Kyoto-based plans, but it should also develop some parallel approaches that America could find appealing.
. Nigel Purvis served as deputy assistant secretary of state for oceans, environment and science under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
http://www.iht.com/articles/513306.html
The President only said he wasn't signing on to Kyoto - he didn't call the signatories a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed."
The headline makes me think of a 3 Stooges-like scenario, where those 160 country leaders are lined up and Bush just goes down the line, slappin' away. One can dream, can't they-haha!
Question -- when the Senate voted against Kyoto 95-0 during Clinton's term, did Kerry vote against the treaty, or did he simply not bother to show up for the vote?
Does anyone recall?
Who else signed Kyoto? I thought it was only one country.
And every single Democrat voted AGAINST Kyoto when it came up for a vote during Clinton's term.
Kerry voted against it.
I can think of 160 countries that need slapping.
Another CLintonista hold-out who should be voted off the island.
Someone do some research and find the roll call from when the Senate voted AGAINST Kyoto 95-0 and see if Kerry voted against or failed to vote.
This is from another article appearing today:
"Kerry, like Bush, opposed American participation in the current Kyoto treaty. In 1999, he joined in a 95-0 Senate vote that stated that the United States should not ratify the treaty unless China and other rapidly developing countries were also required to reduce greenhouse gases.
"But Kerry, who has called pollution a "mortal threat" to the climate, wants to reopen the Kyoto negotiations to refashion an agreement acceptable to the United States."
Clearly, Kerry wants to now vote for the Kyoto treaty AFTER he voted against it.
For most countries Kyoto is meaningless and does not change anything - it only truly affects a handful of developed countries.
Countries like India and Nigeria and China and Brazil are exempt from its requirements.
The entire treaty is basically designed to punish America for being economically successful and that's why America refuses to sign it.
Well, since the vote was unanimous against Kyoto, he either voted against it or was (shocker, shocker) not present (again).
I would ask "how low can he/they go?", but then I remember that these are desperate Democrats in an election year. Truth is the first casualty in the war for civilization.
Wasn't that vote 98 - 0.........
Can anyone find Kerry's vote on that issue?
I would like to know the answer to it, most
likely that littly commy kerry voted for it, before
he voted against it.
I found out a lot (Post #1) but not his vote in 1997. I've been looking.
It was 95 - 0.
So 5 didn't vote.
One of them could have been Kerry.
Uhhh==When Kerry went to Wisconsin and spoke of "Lambert Field" He annointed it Steeler land. I would say that should not sit well.
Rush plays a clip frequently (and maybe it's old) that only one country signed Kyoto. Do you have a link that confirms which countries signed Kyoto; I'd love to read who signed on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.