(sorry to whoever I stole this pic from) It's called sovereignty
I wonder if the UN would get any funds or transaction fees from emission credits bought.
Posted on 10/09/2004 12:35:20 PM PDT by wagglebee
John Kerry is now severely criticizing President Bush for withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol. On July 25, 1997, however, he joined 94 other senators who voted for Senate Resolution 98, which says that the U.S. should not ratify the Kyoto Protocol if: 1) it did not impose restrictions on developing countries, and 2) it would "would result in serious harm to the economy. ..."
The Kyoto Protocol fails both tests. It is binding on only 36 of the world's 191 nations, and it would result in extremely serious harm to the U.S. economy. John Kerry now supports the Kyoto Protocol, while it still contains the very flaws that were the basis for his opposition in 1997.
This particular flip-flop is very important. President Bush has no intention to submit the protocol for Senate ratification. John Kerry, to curry favor with his European buddies, would undoubtedly submit it for ratification. With the changes in the Senate since 1997, the protocol could very easily be ratified.
The economic impact of Kyoto has been analyzed by many independent and government agencies since 1998. All show that the protocol would dramatically increase the costs of energy while reducing its availability.
What people fail to understand is that the Kyoto Protocol is simply the first step toward a multi-step procedure to eventually eliminate all use of fossil fuel on a timetable set by the U.N. What's worse, no credible scientist can say for sure that were the protocol fully implemented, it would have any detectable effect on global temperatures.
To achieve the protocol's objective – to stop the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – all nations would have to reduce emission by nearly 80 percent below 1990 levels. The reduction of energy use required to meet this objective would change the way we live beyond recognition.
China and India, on the other hand, as well as about 150 other nations, are not bound by Kyoto energy restrictions and will remain free to use as much fossil-fuel energy as they wish. Their economies are free to expand as rapidly as possible, while the United States would be at the mercy of the U.N. to allocate how much energy could be consumed here.
The Kyoto Protocol is not, never has been, nor will it ever be, about global warming. It is, instead, an ingenious mechanism to centralize the control of energy availability and consumption. It is the perfect mechanism to enforce the redistribution and equalization of wealth, while eliminating the principle of free markets in the energy industry.
The touted emissions trading scheme advanced by the protocol is nothing more than a wealth-transfer system. For example, Russia, whose industry is in such a shambles that its emissions are already below their assigned target, has "emission credits" to sell, as do most of the developing nations. For American energy providers to stay in business, they will have to purchase credits from a seller nation. American ratepayers will actually pay for those credits, through increases in their monthly electric bills and at the gasoline pump.
This is one of the more conspicuous mechanisms the protocol provides. The U.N. enforcement body is also empowered to dictate the type of energy that may be developed in the future. It has the power to dictate land use by limiting land use changes and requiring massive areas of land to be reserved for carbon "sequestration." Whatever rules the U.N. body wishes to impose, it can impose. Should the protocol ever be ratified by the U.S., ratepayers and consumers would have no recourse. The U.S. has only one vote among the 120 nations that have ratified the protocol, only 36 of which are bound by its provisions.
President Bush has been demonized by not only John Kerry, but by other nations who eagerly await the transfer of America's wealth the Kyoto Protocol was designed to facilitate. John Kerry's flip-flop on this issue demonstrates his willingness to sell out America's rate payers, industry and all energy consumers to meet the "global test" of international approval.
Regardless of the outcome of the November election, the worldwide global-warming industry is ramping up a new campaign to force the United States to ratify the protocol. Russia's ratification will leave only the U.S. and Australia among the developed nations outside the protocol's reach.
President Bush has kept the United States energy policy free from U.N. control; John Kerry has promised to subject U.S. energy policy to the U.N.'s control. Whether voters realize it or not, they will decide -- with their vote on Nov. 2 -- whether the U.N. takes control over America's future.
This cannot be allowed to happen!
No chance. What part of 94-0 did this writer miss?
No self-respecting American would sign onto Kyoto or the World Criminal Court.
LOL, so that just leaves the morally bankrupt ex-patriot Europeans in our midst like Clinton and Kerry.
One of the arrogant statements by Kerry and the libs is that all "reputable" scientists support the idea of global warming by greenhouse gases. This assertion is simply not true. Recently, there has been an excellent series of letters and articles in The Industrial Physicist, which is published by the American Physical Society.
http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-5/p4.html
http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-4/p4.html
Several key points are made in this debate:
1. Global Warming and CO2 concentration are not correlated historically. Over geologic time scales, CO2 concentration has increased to a factor of 20 over present levels, but this is not correlated with increased global temperature. Indeed, there has been significant glaciation during these periods.
2. The best (time-dependent) connection is that CO2 concentration and global temperature are separated by 600 years AND the CO2 concentration increases 600 years after the temperature increase.
3. The global models do not properly include the changes in the solar flux.
4. The biggest problem with the global models is their large uncertainty, which is of order the actual change. Indeed, the MIT report, on reducing the global model error, shows that at the 2 confidence limit, the error is the same magnitude as the predicted temperature change.
5. The most difficult part of this, scientifically, is the difficulty in determining the error of the error without hard data. Colloquially, the signal is buried in the noise.
6. There has been little measured data except at the polar regions. Contrary to MSM press reports, the polar temperatures are DECREASING and have been for the past 50 years. This effect is exactly the opposite as predicted by the models. (The model prediction of warming is that it is not uniform across the globe but is concentrated at the polar regions) (think Waterworld). The models and the data disagree at this point, which suggests that the uncertainty may be even larger than the MIT report suggests.
It is, perhaps, given this uncertainty, a bit premature to be committing to Kyoto.
Not that there is any global warming problem to begin with....
RED FLAG TIME - Russia is now on the Kyoto team after refusing to sign a while back - have anything to do with the Oil For Food Program/Scam?
John Kerry is now severely criticizing President Bush for withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol. On July 25, 1997, however, he joined 94 other senators who voted for Senate Resolution 98, which says that the U.S. should not ratify the Kyoto Protocol if: 1) it did not impose restrictions on developing countries, and 2) it would "would result in serious harm to the economy. ..."
- Johnfonda Kerry playing footise with Putin now? I don't trust Putin, I don't trust the UN and lord knows, I don't trust Johnfonda Kerry and his foreign buddies! Kerry is so anti-American you can taste it and as he has said, he is an INTERNATIONALIST - neither this nor John-boy pass the smell test.
From the "I wish he had said dept"...
When &%itface said "I was in Kyoto"
The Prez should have said,,,,
"Is that right Senator,was that before or after your trip to Cambodia?'
(sorry to whoever I stole this pic from) It's called sovereignty
I wonder if the UN would get any funds or transaction fees from emission credits bought.
I wish Bush had mentioned this in his response during the debate!
BTTT!!!!!!
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.