And yet we exempt them from Kyoto until at least 2012!
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1120083012292&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
Excerpt:
"Second only to the United States in emitting the greenhouse gases that
cause global warming, China is destined to become the world's biggest
polluter within 15 years. Demand for coal-fired power plants that belch
carbon dioxide fumes into the air is soaring faster than environmentalists
like Yang can catch their breath.
Seven of the world's 10 most polluted cities are in China, where filth
invades your eyes and coal dust clogs your throat. Yet here in the southern
province of Guangdong, which bills itself as factory to the world,
conservation is a hard sell."
Jane
.
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: China to be "World's Biggest Polluter" Within 15 Yrs |
02 Jul 2005 05:07:33 PM |
|
|
And more to consider on this issue that the Star utterly failed to detail
for its readers:
Excerpts: White House Briefing
Comments on Kyoto Protocol
Fleischer discusses reported end
to U.S. support for treaty
13 March 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Following are excerpts from the March 28 White House press briefing,
containing responses of White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer to
questions concerning reported Bush administration plans to end U.S.
support for the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. The United States signed
the protocol in 1997.
Following is the White House transcript:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
March 28, 2001
QUESTION: Did you ever straighten out all the muddled answers on
Kyoto?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ask a question, and I'll try to give you an answer.
Q: The question is, where do we stand on Kyoto? Have we pulled out?
What is -- is there movement now to pull out and so forth?
MR. FLEISCHER: The treaty, as you know, was signed, but it was not
ratified by the Senate. In fact, the Senate voted 95-0 against
ratification of it. Also on that measure, whether it's enforced or not --
as you know, under the Kyoto agreement, 55 nations need to submit it,
enforce it to their various governments. Only one nation in the world has
done so. There are 54 more to go. So the treaty cannot even possibly even
be in effect. So there's nothing to withdraw from because there is no
treaty in effect.
The President has been unequivocal. He does not support the Kyoto
treaty. It exempts the developing nations around the world, and it is not
in the United States' economic best interest. The President has directed
his Cabinet Secretaries to begin a review so we can, as a nation, address
a serious problem, which is global warming. That Cabinet-level review is
underway, and the President looks forward to receiving the results.
Q: Does he think it never should have been signed?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've not asked him that question. It was signed prior
to him becoming President, so it's a moot question.
Q: Has he read the treaty?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of anybody in government who reads
every page of every treaty except for a very, very few people. But the
President is well aware, of course, of what's in the treaty.
Q: Is it his intention to have the U.S. withdraw from Kyoto?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's what Helen just asked, and I said there's
nothing to withdraw from. The treaty is not in effect. But he opposes the
treaty. He's made that plain.
Q: But we have made a commitment. I mean, you said there's nothing
to withdraw from. You make a certain commitment when you sign a treaty.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the commitment on the treaty is dependent on
ratification. As you know, the Senate voted 95-0 against ratifying it. It
also is dependent on actions taken by the international community. When
only one out of 55 nations required to put the treaty into effect has
acted, it's a signal worldwide that others agree with the President's
position on the treaty.
Q: Ari, in the closing days of the Clinton administration there was
an effort to negotiate an understanding with European nations about some
of the Kyoto protocols dealing with emissions, and those failed. It was a
frustrating failure for the Clinton administration. Did this
administration look upon that and say, well, if those negotiations, if
Clinton failed, there's no way that we can make any progress; therefore,
you're much more pessimistic about working anything out with Kyoto?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know about that time frame, Major. I know
this has been the President's consistent position from the campaign
forward. And the concern is that most of the world was exempt from the
treaty and the treaty as it currently is written is not in the economic
interests of the United States, as well.
Q: Why not?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because of the huge costs involved that are
disproportionate to the benefits, particularly when most of the world is
exempt.
Q: Well, would he favor making the rest of the world subject to the
treaty or --
MR. FLEISCHER: You need to await the results of the Cabinet-level
review that the President has directed. ....
Q: On Kyoto, Ari, was there any discussion, and what did the White
House believe the wisdom was of approaching this by saying, we're going to
throw this whole treaty out, we're going to start from scratch, as opposed
to going in and discussing with our allies ways of changing the treaty to
meet the President's concerns?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think you should withhold until you are
filled in on what the Cabinet-level review will show. The Cabinet-level
review is going to be broad, it's going to look at what the President
views as a serious problem, which is global warming. So until they
complete their review I think it's premature to judge what will be in it.
Q: Why didn't the White House wait until the Cabinet-level review
was done before deciding what to do on the treaty?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the President has always opposed the treaty.
It's a question of what can we do based on sound science and a balanced
approach as a nation to take action against global warming. That's why the
President opposed the Kyoto treaty and that's why he has directed the
Cabinet-level review to take place.
Q: That doesn't explain why you couldn't have gone in and said,
look, there are parts of this treaty -- obviously, the developing world is
not included, and also we think it's too hard on us for economic growth,
so let's figure out ways to change it. And can you give us some specifics
on the economic cost to the U.S.? What is it particularly that the
President is concerned about in terms of the economic cost?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I have addressed the President's concerns
about the treaty. And as for solutions for global warming, once again, you
have to wait for the review of the Cabinet-level review. But the President
does believe that working with our friends and allies and through
international processes, we can develop technologies, market-based
incentives, and other innovative approaches that can combat global climate
change.
Q: I don't understand. Why not work for change this treaty? That's
what people were originally trying to do? Why not put this on the table
and work with those countries --
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the President opposes this treaty in its
present form. And I think until you see the results of the Cabinet-level
review, it's premature to speculate about exactly what steps the
administration will make. But, obviously, any time a treaty has to be
submitted by 55 of the signatory nations in order for it to go in effect
and only one nation has submitted it, it's an indication that other
nations agree with the United States.
Q: Well, let's be clear. I mean, is this treaty from the United
States' viewpoint, dead, or -- because he opposes it doesn't mean that you
have abandoned it, necessarily -- has this treaty been abandoned by the
United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: Given the fact that it was voted 95-0 against in the
Senate, it's a clear sign that there is little support, if any, to --
Q: What nation ratified it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Romania submitted it for it to be in effect --
Romania did.
end transcript
Doc
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43Axe.15907$mK5.1161742@news20.bellglobal.com...
And yet we exempt them from Kyoto until at least 2012!
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1120083012292&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
Excerpt:
"Second only to the United States in emitting the greenhouse gases that
cause global warming, China is destined to become the world's biggest
polluter within 15 years. Demand for coal-fired power plants that belch
carbon dioxide fumes into the air is soaring faster than
environmentalists
like Yang can catch their breath.
Seven of the world's 10 most polluted cities are in China, where filth
invades your eyes and coal dust clogs your throat. Yet here in the
southern
province of Guangdong, which bills itself as factory to the world,
conservation is a hard sell."
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: China to be "World's Biggest Polluter" Within 15 Yrs |
02 Jul 2005 06:54:55 PM |
|
|
"Doc" <bushelsofbushrot@HellsHereNow.com> wrote in message
news:da737g02uuo@enews2.newsguy.com...
And more to consider on this issue that the Star utterly failed to detail
for its readers:
Excerpts: White House Briefing
Comments on Kyoto Protocol
Fleischer discusses reported end
to U.S. support for treaty
And rightly so. Without China and India on board, why should they sign on?
Kyoto is a joke, frankly.
Canada has signed on, yet our emissions have increased by 20%. As I
mentioned in my response to Stat, we may yet opt out, as may Japan.
Jane
Jane
13 March 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Following are excerpts from the March 28 White House press briefing,
containing responses of White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer to
questions concerning reported Bush administration plans to end U.S.
support for the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. The United States signed
the protocol in 1997.
Following is the White House transcript:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
March 28, 2001
QUESTION: Did you ever straighten out all the muddled answers on
Kyoto?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ask a question, and I'll try to give you an answer.
Q: The question is, where do we stand on Kyoto? Have we pulled out?
What is -- is there movement now to pull out and so forth?
MR. FLEISCHER: The treaty, as you know, was signed, but it was not
ratified by the Senate. In fact, the Senate voted 95-0 against
ratification of it. Also on that measure, whether it's enforced or not --
as you know, under the Kyoto agreement, 55 nations need to submit it,
enforce it to their various governments. Only one nation in the world has
done so. There are 54 more to go. So the treaty cannot even possibly even
be in effect. So there's nothing to withdraw from because there is no
treaty in effect.
The President has been unequivocal. He does not support the Kyoto
treaty. It exempts the developing nations around the world, and it is not
in the United States' economic best interest. The President has directed
his Cabinet Secretaries to begin a review so we can, as a nation, address
a serious problem, which is global warming. That Cabinet-level review is
underway, and the President looks forward to receiving the results.
Q: Does he think it never should have been signed?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've not asked him that question. It was signed prior
to him becoming President, so it's a moot question.
Q: Has he read the treaty?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of anybody in government who reads
every page of every treaty except for a very, very few people. But the
President is well aware, of course, of what's in the treaty.
Q: Is it his intention to have the U.S. withdraw from Kyoto?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's what Helen just asked, and I said there's
nothing to withdraw from. The treaty is not in effect. But he opposes the
treaty. He's made that plain.
Q: But we have made a commitment. I mean, you said there's nothing
to withdraw from. You make a certain commitment when you sign a treaty.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the commitment on the treaty is dependent on
ratification. As you know, the Senate voted 95-0 against ratifying it. It
also is dependent on actions taken by the international community. When
only one out of 55 nations required to put the treaty into effect has
acted, it's a signal worldwide that others agree with the President's
position on the treaty.
Q: Ari, in the closing days of the Clinton administration there was
an effort to negotiate an understanding with European nations about some
of the Kyoto protocols dealing with emissions, and those failed. It was a
frustrating failure for the Clinton administration. Did this
administration look upon that and say, well, if those negotiations, if
Clinton failed, there's no way that we can make any progress; therefore,
you're much more pessimistic about working anything out with Kyoto?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know about that time frame, Major. I know
this has been the President's consistent position from the campaign
forward. And the concern is that most of the world was exempt from the
treaty and the treaty as it currently is written is not in the economic
interests of the United States, as well.
Q: Why not?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because of the huge costs involved that are
disproportionate to the benefits, particularly when most of the world is
exempt.
Q: Well, would he favor making the rest of the world subject to the
treaty or --
MR. FLEISCHER: You need to await the results of the Cabinet-level
review that the President has directed. ....
Q: On Kyoto, Ari, was there any discussion, and what did the White
House believe the wisdom was of approaching this by saying, we're going to
throw this whole treaty out, we're going to start from scratch, as opposed
to going in and discussing with our allies ways of changing the treaty to
meet the President's concerns?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think you should withhold until you are
filled in on what the Cabinet-level review will show. The Cabinet-level
review is going to be broad, it's going to look at what the President
views as a serious problem, which is global warming. So until they
complete their review I think it's premature to judge what will be in it.
Q: Why didn't the White House wait until the Cabinet-level review
was done before deciding what to do on the treaty?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the President has always opposed the treaty.
It's a question of what can we do based on sound science and a balanced
approach as a nation to take action against global warming. That's why the
President opposed the Kyoto treaty and that's why he has directed the
Cabinet-level review to take place.
Q: That doesn't explain why you couldn't have gone in and said,
look, there are parts of this treaty -- obviously, the developing world is
not included, and also we think it's too hard on us for economic growth,
so let's figure out ways to change it. And can you give us some specifics
on the economic cost to the U.S.? What is it particularly that the
President is concerned about in terms of the economic cost?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I have addressed the President's concerns
about the treaty. And as for solutions for global warming, once again, you
have to wait for the review of the Cabinet-level review. But the President
does believe that working with our friends and allies and through
international processes, we can develop technologies, market-based
incentives, and other innovative approaches that can combat global climate
change.
Q: I don't understand. Why not work for change this treaty? That's
what people were originally trying to do? Why not put this on the table
and work with those countries --
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the President opposes this treaty in its
present form. And I think until you see the results of the Cabinet-level
review, it's premature to speculate about exactly what steps the
administration will make. But, obviously, any time a treaty has to be
submitted by 55 of the signatory nations in order for it to go in effect
and only one nation has submitted it, it's an indication that other
nations agree with the United States.
Q: Well, let's be clear. I mean, is this treaty from the United
States' viewpoint, dead, or -- because he opposes it doesn't mean that you
have abandoned it, necessarily -- has this treaty been abandoned by the
United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: Given the fact that it was voted 95-0 against in the
Senate, it's a clear sign that there is little support, if any, to --
Q: What nation ratified it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Romania submitted it for it to be in effect --
Romania did.
end transcript
Doc
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43Axe.15907$mK5.1161742@news20.bellglobal.com...
And yet we exempt them from Kyoto until at least 2012!
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1120083012292&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
Excerpt:
"Second only to the United States in emitting the greenhouse gases that
cause global warming, China is destined to become the world's biggest
polluter within 15 years. Demand for coal-fired power plants that belch
carbon dioxide fumes into the air is soaring faster than
environmentalists
like Yang can catch their breath.
Seven of the world's 10 most polluted cities are in China, where filth
invades your eyes and coal dust clogs your throat. Yet here in the
southern
province of Guangdong, which bills itself as factory to the world,
conservation is a hard sell."
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: China to be "World's Biggest Polluter" Within 15 Yrs |
02 Jul 2005 07:21:40 PM |
|
|
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nPFxe.11149$Ai.842932@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Doc" <bushelsofbushrot@HellsHereNow.com> wrote in message
news:da737g02uuo@enews2.newsguy.com...
And more to consider on this issue that the Star utterly failed to
detail
for its readers:
Excerpts: White House Briefing
Comments on Kyoto Protocol
Fleischer discusses reported end
to U.S. support for treaty
And rightly so. Without China and India on board, why should they sign
on?
Kyoto is a joke, frankly.
Canada has signed on, yet our emissions have increased by 20%. As I
mentioned in my response to Stat, we may yet opt out, as may Japan.
Jane
And, frankly, without the USA on board, being the largest polluter of all,
why should China and India sign on?
Doc
13 March 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
------
Following are excerpts from the March 28 White House press
briefing,
containing responses of White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer to
questions concerning reported Bush administration plans to end U.S.
support for the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. The United States
signed
the protocol in 1997.
Following is the White House transcript:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
March 28, 2001
QUESTION: Did you ever straighten out all the muddled answers on
Kyoto?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ask a question, and I'll try to give you an
answer.
Q: The question is, where do we stand on Kyoto? Have we pulled
out?
What is -- is there movement now to pull out and so forth?
MR. FLEISCHER: The treaty, as you know, was signed, but it was
not
ratified by the Senate. In fact, the Senate voted 95-0 against
ratification of it. Also on that measure, whether it's enforced or
not --
as you know, under the Kyoto agreement, 55 nations need to submit it,
enforce it to their various governments. Only one nation in the world
has
done so. There are 54 more to go. So the treaty cannot even possibly
even
be in effect. So there's nothing to withdraw from because there is no
treaty in effect.
The President has been unequivocal. He does not support the Kyoto
treaty. It exempts the developing nations around the world, and it is
not
in the United States' economic best interest. The President has
directed
his Cabinet Secretaries to begin a review so we can, as a nation,
address
a serious problem, which is global warming. That Cabinet-level review
is
underway, and the President looks forward to receiving the results.
Q: Does he think it never should have been signed?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've not asked him that question. It was signed
prior
to him becoming President, so it's a moot question.
Q: Has he read the treaty?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of anybody in government who reads
every page of every treaty except for a very, very few people. But the
President is well aware, of course, of what's in the treaty.
Q: Is it his intention to have the U.S. withdraw from Kyoto?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's what Helen just asked, and I said there's
nothing to withdraw from. The treaty is not in effect. But he opposes
the
treaty. He's made that plain.
Q: But we have made a commitment. I mean, you said there's
nothing
to withdraw from. You make a certain commitment when you sign a
treaty.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the commitment on the treaty is dependent on
ratification. As you know, the Senate voted 95-0 against ratifying it.
It
also is dependent on actions taken by the international community.
When
only one out of 55 nations required to put the treaty into effect has
acted, it's a signal worldwide that others agree with the President's
position on the treaty.
Q: Ari, in the closing days of the Clinton administration there
was
an effort to negotiate an understanding with European nations about
some
of the Kyoto protocols dealing with emissions, and those failed. It
was a
frustrating failure for the Clinton administration. Did this
administration look upon that and say, well, if those negotiations, if
Clinton failed, there's no way that we can make any progress;
therefore,
you're much more pessimistic about working anything out with Kyoto?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know about that time frame, Major. I know
this has been the President's consistent position from the campaign
forward. And the concern is that most of the world was exempt from the
treaty and the treaty as it currently is written is not in the
economic
interests of the United States, as well.
Q: Why not?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because of the huge costs involved that are
disproportionate to the benefits, particularly when most of the world
is
exempt.
Q: Well, would he favor making the rest of the world subject to
the
treaty or --
MR. FLEISCHER: You need to await the results of the Cabinet-level
review that the President has directed. ....
Q: On Kyoto, Ari, was there any discussion, and what did the
White
House believe the wisdom was of approaching this by saying, we're
going to
throw this whole treaty out, we're going to start from scratch, as
opposed
to going in and discussing with our allies ways of changing the treaty
to
meet the President's concerns?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think you should withhold until you are
filled in on what the Cabinet-level review will show. The
Cabinet-level
review is going to be broad, it's going to look at what the President
views as a serious problem, which is global warming. So until they
complete their review I think it's premature to judge what will be in
it.
Q: Why didn't the White House wait until the Cabinet-level review
was done before deciding what to do on the treaty?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the President has always opposed the
treaty.
It's a question of what can we do based on sound science and a
balanced
approach as a nation to take action against global warming. That's why
the
President opposed the Kyoto treaty and that's why he has directed the
Cabinet-level review to take place.
Q: That doesn't explain why you couldn't have gone in and said,
look, there are parts of this treaty -- obviously, the developing
world is
not included, and also we think it's too hard on us for economic
growth,
so let's figure out ways to change it. And can you give us some
specifics
on the economic cost to the U.S.? What is it particularly that the
President is concerned about in terms of the economic cost?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I have addressed the President's concerns
about the treaty. And as for solutions for global warming, once again,
you
have to wait for the review of the Cabinet-level review. But the
President
does believe that working with our friends and allies and through
international processes, we can develop technologies, market-based
incentives, and other innovative approaches that can combat global
climate
change.
Q: I don't understand. Why not work for change this treaty?
That's
what people were originally trying to do? Why not put this on the
table
and work with those countries --
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the President opposes this treaty in its
present form. And I think until you see the results of the
Cabinet-level
review, it's premature to speculate about exactly what steps the
administration will make. But, obviously, any time a treaty has to be
submitted by 55 of the signatory nations in order for it to go in
effect
and only one nation has submitted it, it's an indication that other
nations agree with the United States.
Q: Well, let's be clear. I mean, is this treaty from the United
States' viewpoint, dead, or -- because he opposes it doesn't mean that
you
have abandoned it, necessarily -- has this treaty been abandoned by
the
United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: Given the fact that it was voted 95-0 against in
the
Senate, it's a clear sign that there is little support, if any, to --
Q: What nation ratified it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Romania submitted it for it to be in effect --
Romania did.
end transcript
Doc
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43Axe.15907$mK5.1161742@news20.bellglobal.com...
And yet we exempt them from Kyoto until at least 2012!
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1120083012292&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
Excerpt:
"Second only to the United States in emitting the greenhouse gases
that
cause global warming, China is destined to become the world's biggest
polluter within 15 years. Demand for coal-fired power plants that
belch
carbon dioxide fumes into the air is soaring faster than
environmentalists
like Yang can catch their breath.
Seven of the world's 10 most polluted cities are in China, where
filth
invades your eyes and coal dust clogs your throat. Yet here in the
southern
province of Guangdong, which bills itself as factory to the world,
conservation is a hard sell."
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: China to be "World's Biggest Polluter" Within 15 Yrs |
02 Jul 2005 09:18:20 PM |
|
|
"Doc" <bushelsofbushrot@HellsHereNow.com> wrote in message
news:da7b2p080r@enews2.newsguy.com...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nPFxe.11149$Ai.842932@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Doc" <bushelsofbushrot@HellsHereNow.com> wrote in message
news:da737g02uuo@enews2.newsguy.com...
And more to consider on this issue that the Star utterly failed to
detail
for its readers:
Excerpts: White House Briefing
Comments on Kyoto Protocol
Fleischer discusses reported end
to U.S. support for treaty
And rightly so. Without China and India on board, why should they sign
on?
Kyoto is a joke, frankly.
Canada has signed on, yet our emissions have increased by 20%. As I
mentioned in my response to Stat, we may yet opt out, as may Japan.
Jane
And, frankly, without the USA on board, being the largest polluter of all,
why should China and India sign on?
Perhaps if "third World" nations were not exempt, the US would sign on...
Jane
Doc
13 March 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
------
Following are excerpts from the March 28 White House press
briefing,
containing responses of White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer to
questions concerning reported Bush administration plans to end U.S.
support for the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. The United States
signed
the protocol in 1997.
Following is the White House transcript:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
March 28, 2001
QUESTION: Did you ever straighten out all the muddled answers on
Kyoto?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ask a question, and I'll try to give you an
answer.
Q: The question is, where do we stand on Kyoto? Have we pulled
out?
What is -- is there movement now to pull out and so forth?
MR. FLEISCHER: The treaty, as you know, was signed, but it was
not
ratified by the Senate. In fact, the Senate voted 95-0 against
ratification of it. Also on that measure, whether it's enforced or
not --
as you know, under the Kyoto agreement, 55 nations need to submit it,
enforce it to their various governments. Only one nation in the world
has
done so. There are 54 more to go. So the treaty cannot even possibly
even
be in effect. So there's nothing to withdraw from because there is no
treaty in effect.
The President has been unequivocal. He does not support the Kyoto
treaty. It exempts the developing nations around the world, and it is
not
in the United States' economic best interest. The President has
directed
his Cabinet Secretaries to begin a review so we can, as a nation,
address
a serious problem, which is global warming. That Cabinet-level review
is
underway, and the President looks forward to receiving the results.
Q: Does he think it never should have been signed?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've not asked him that question. It was signed
prior
to him becoming President, so it's a moot question.
Q: Has he read the treaty?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of anybody in government who reads
every page of every treaty except for a very, very few people. But the
President is well aware, of course, of what's in the treaty.
Q: Is it his intention to have the U.S. withdraw from Kyoto?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's what Helen just asked, and I said there's
nothing to withdraw from. The treaty is not in effect. But he opposes
the
treaty. He's made that plain.
Q: But we have made a commitment. I mean, you said there's
nothing
to withdraw from. You make a certain commitment when you sign a
treaty.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the commitment on the treaty is dependent on
ratification. As you know, the Senate voted 95-0 against ratifying it.
It
also is dependent on actions taken by the international community.
When
only one out of 55 nations required to put the treaty into effect has
acted, it's a signal worldwide that others agree with the President's
position on the treaty.
Q: Ari, in the closing days of the Clinton administration there
was
an effort to negotiate an understanding with European nations about
some
of the Kyoto protocols dealing with emissions, and those failed. It
was a
frustrating failure for the Clinton administration. Did this
administration look upon that and say, well, if those negotiations, if
Clinton failed, there's no way that we can make any progress;
therefore,
you're much more pessimistic about working anything out with Kyoto?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know about that time frame, Major. I know
this has been the President's consistent position from the campaign
forward. And the concern is that most of the world was exempt from the
treaty and the treaty as it currently is written is not in the
economic
interests of the United States, as well.
Q: Why not?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because of the huge costs involved that are
disproportionate to the benefits, particularly when most of the world
is
exempt.
Q: Well, would he favor making the rest of the world subject to
the
treaty or --
MR. FLEISCHER: You need to await the results of the Cabinet-level
review that the President has directed. ....
Q: On Kyoto, Ari, was there any discussion, and what did the
White
House believe the wisdom was of approaching this by saying, we're
going to
throw this whole treaty out, we're going to start from scratch, as
opposed
to going in and discussing with our allies ways of changing the treaty
to
meet the President's concerns?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think you should withhold until you are
filled in on what the Cabinet-level review will show. The
Cabinet-level
review is going to be broad, it's going to look at what the President
views as a serious problem, which is global warming. So until they
complete their review I think it's premature to judge what will be in
it.
Q: Why didn't the White House wait until the Cabinet-level review
was done before deciding what to do on the treaty?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the President has always opposed the
treaty.
It's a question of what can we do based on sound science and a
balanced
approach as a nation to take action against global warming. That's why
the
President opposed the Kyoto treaty and that's why he has directed the
Cabinet-level review to take place.
Q: That doesn't explain why you couldn't have gone in and said,
look, there are parts of this treaty -- obviously, the developing
world is
not included, and also we think it's too hard on us for economic
growth,
so let's figure out ways to change it. And can you give us some
specifics
on the economic cost to the U.S.? What is it particularly that the
President is concerned about in terms of the economic cost?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I have addressed the President's concerns
about the treaty. And as for solutions for global warming, once again,
you
have to wait for the review of the Cabinet-level review. But the
President
does believe that working with our friends and allies and through
international processes, we can develop technologies, market-based
incentives, and other innovative approaches that can combat global
climate
change.
Q: I don't understand. Why not work for change this treaty?
That's
what people were originally trying to do? Why not put this on the
table
and work with those countries --
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the President opposes this treaty in its
present form. And I think until you see the results of the
Cabinet-level
review, it's premature to speculate about exactly what steps the
administration will make. But, obviously, any time a treaty has to be
submitted by 55 of the signatory nations in order for it to go in
effect
and only one nation has submitted it, it's an indication that other
nations agree with the United States.
Q: Well, let's be clear. I mean, is this treaty from the United
States' viewpoint, dead, or -- because he opposes it doesn't mean that
you
have abandoned it, necessarily -- has this treaty been abandoned by
the
United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: Given the fact that it was voted 95-0 against in
the
Senate, it's a clear sign that there is little support, if any, to --
Q: What nation ratified it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Romania submitted it for it to be in effect --
Romania did.
end transcript
Doc
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43Axe.15907$mK5.1161742@news20.bellglobal.com...
And yet we exempt them from Kyoto until at least 2012!
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1120083012292&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
Excerpt:
"Second only to the United States in emitting the greenhouse gases
that
cause global warming, China is destined to become the world's biggest
polluter within 15 years. Demand for coal-fired power plants that
belch
carbon dioxide fumes into the air is soaring faster than
environmentalists
like Yang can catch their breath.
Seven of the world's 10 most polluted cities are in China, where
filth
invades your eyes and coal dust clogs your throat. Yet here in the
southern
province of Guangdong, which bills itself as factory to the world,
conservation is a hard sell."
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: China to be "World's Biggest Polluter" Within 15 Yrs |
02 Jul 2005 09:49:21 PM |
|
|
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PVHxe.11262$Ai.851667@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Doc" <bushelsofbushrot@HellsHereNow.com> wrote in message
news:da7b2p080r@enews2.newsguy.com...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nPFxe.11149$Ai.842932@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Doc" <bushelsofbushrot@HellsHereNow.com> wrote in message
news:da737g02uuo@enews2.newsguy.com...
And more to consider on this issue that the Star utterly failed to
detail
for its readers:
Excerpts: White House Briefing
Comments on Kyoto Protocol
Fleischer discusses reported end
to U.S. support for treaty
And rightly so. Without China and India on board, why should they
sign
on?
Kyoto is a joke, frankly.
Canada has signed on, yet our emissions have increased by 20%. As I
mentioned in my response to Stat, we may yet opt out, as may Japan.
Jane
And, frankly, without the USA on board, being the largest polluter of
all,
why should China and India sign on?
Perhaps if "third World" nations were not exempt, the US would sign
on...
Jane
Perhaps, as the world's biggest polluter, the US would sign on as an
example of responsibility to the earth's environment for all to follow,
and for which we all share. It could continue on this political/corporate
merry-go-round forever, but what we're seeing is that nothing positive is
being accomplished.
Biospheric pollution is something the entire species has to work together
to solve, or suffer the negative consequences together.
It's time this species went beyond greedy motivations, and those who
debate the issue beyond their petty political squabbles, and begin to act
like a truly mature and caring species for all concerned.
Doc
13 March 2001
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
--
------
Following are excerpts from the March 28 White House press
briefing,
containing responses of White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer
to
questions concerning reported Bush administration plans to end U.S.
support for the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. The United States
signed
the protocol in 1997.
Following is the White House transcript:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
March 28, 2001
QUESTION: Did you ever straighten out all the muddled answers
on
Kyoto?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ask a question, and I'll try to give you an
answer.
Q: The question is, where do we stand on Kyoto? Have we pulled
out?
What is -- is there movement now to pull out and so forth?
MR. FLEISCHER: The treaty, as you know, was signed, but it was
not
ratified by the Senate. In fact, the Senate voted 95-0 against
ratification of it. Also on that measure, whether it's enforced or
not --
as you know, under the Kyoto agreement, 55 nations need to submit
it,
enforce it to their various governments. Only one nation in the
world
has
done so. There are 54 more to go. So the treaty cannot even
possibly
even
be in effect. So there's nothing to withdraw from because there is
no
treaty in effect.
The President has been unequivocal. He does not support the
Kyoto
treaty. It exempts the developing nations around the world, and it
is
not
in the United States' economic best interest. The President has
directed
his Cabinet Secretaries to begin a review so we can, as a nation,
address
a serious problem, which is global warming. That Cabinet-level
review
is
underway, and the President looks forward to receiving the results.
Q: Does he think it never should have been signed?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've not asked him that question. It was signed
prior
to him becoming President, so it's a moot question.
Q: Has he read the treaty?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of anybody in government who
reads
every page of every treaty except for a very, very few people. But
the
President is well aware, of course, of what's in the treaty.
Q: Is it his intention to have the U.S. withdraw from Kyoto?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's what Helen just asked, and I said
there's
nothing to withdraw from. The treaty is not in effect. But he
opposes
the
treaty. He's made that plain.
Q: But we have made a commitment. I mean, you said there's
nothing
to withdraw from. You make a certain commitment when you sign a
treaty.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the commitment on the treaty is dependent
on
ratification. As you know, the Senate voted 95-0 against ratifying
it.
It
also is dependent on actions taken by the international community.
When
only one out of 55 nations required to put the treaty into effect
has
acted, it's a signal worldwide that others agree with the
President's
position on the treaty.
Q: Ari, in the closing days of the Clinton administration
there
was
an effort to negotiate an understanding with European nations about
some
of the Kyoto protocols dealing with emissions, and those failed. It
was a
frustrating failure for the Clinton administration. Did this
administration look upon that and say, well, if those negotiations,
if
Clinton failed, there's no way that we can make any progress;
therefore,
you're much more pessimistic about working anything out with Kyoto?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know about that time frame, Major. I
know
this has been the President's consistent position from the campaign
forward. And the concern is that most of the world was exempt from
the
treaty and the treaty as it currently is written is not in the
economic
interests of the United States, as well.
Q: Why not?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because of the huge costs involved that are
disproportionate to the benefits, particularly when most of the
world
is
exempt.
Q: Well, would he favor making the rest of the world subject
to
the
treaty or --
MR. FLEISCHER: You need to await the results of the
Cabinet-level
review that the President has directed. ....
Q: On Kyoto, Ari, was there any discussion, and what did the
White
House believe the wisdom was of approaching this by saying, we're
going to
throw this whole treaty out, we're going to start from scratch, as
opposed
to going in and discussing with our allies ways of changing the
treaty
to
meet the President's concerns?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think you should withhold until you are
filled in on what the Cabinet-level review will show. The
Cabinet-level
review is going to be broad, it's going to look at what the
President
views as a serious problem, which is global warming. So until they
complete their review I think it's premature to judge what will be
in
it.
Q: Why didn't the White House wait until the Cabinet-level
review
was done before deciding what to do on the treaty?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the President has always opposed the
treaty.
It's a question of what can we do based on sound science and a
balanced
approach as a nation to take action against global warming. That's
why
the
President opposed the Kyoto treaty and that's why he has directed
the
Cabinet-level review to take place.
Q: That doesn't explain why you couldn't have gone in and
said,
look, there are parts of this treaty -- obviously, the developing
world is
not included, and also we think it's too hard on us for economic
growth,
so let's figure out ways to change it. And can you give us some
specifics
on the economic cost to the U.S.? What is it particularly that the
President is concerned about in terms of the economic cost?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I have addressed the President's
concerns
about the treaty. And as for solutions for global warming, once
again,
you
have to wait for the review of the Cabinet-level review. But the
President
does believe that working with our friends and allies and through
international processes, we can develop technologies, market-based
incentives, and other innovative approaches that can combat global
climate
change.
Q: I don't understand. Why not work for change this treaty?
That's
what people were originally trying to do? Why not put this on the
table
and work with those countries --
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the President opposes this treaty in
its
present form. And I think until you see the results of the
Cabinet-level
review, it's premature to speculate about exactly what steps the
administration will make. But, obviously, any time a treaty has to
be
submitted by 55 of the signatory nations in order for it to go in
effect
and only one nation has submitted it, it's an indication that other
nations agree with the United States.
Q: Well, let's be clear. I mean, is this treaty from the
United
States' viewpoint, dead, or -- because he opposes it doesn't mean
that
you
have abandoned it, necessarily -- has this treaty been abandoned by
the
United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: Given the fact that it was voted 95-0 against
in
the
Senate, it's a clear sign that there is little support, if any,
to --
Q: What nation ratified it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Romania submitted it for it to be in effect --
Romania did.
end transcript
Doc
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43Axe.15907$mK5.1161742@news20.bellglobal.com...
And yet we exempt them from Kyoto until at least 2012!
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1120083012292&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
Excerpt:
"Second only to the United States in emitting the greenhouse gases
that
cause global warming, China is destined to become the world's
biggest
polluter within 15 years. Demand for coal-fired power plants that
belch
carbon dioxide fumes into the air is soaring faster than
environmentalists
like Yang can catch their breath.
Seven of the world's 10 most polluted cities are in China, where
filth
invades your eyes and coal dust clogs your throat. Yet here in the
southern
province of Guangdong, which bills itself as factory to the world,
conservation is a hard sell."
Jane
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: China to be "World's Biggest Polluter" Within 15 Yrs |
03 Jul 2005 07:46:29 AM |
|
|
Jane wrote:
"Doc" <bushelsofbushrot@HellsHereNow.com> wrote in message
news:da7b2p080r@enews2.newsguy.com...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nPFxe.11149$Ai.842932@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Doc" <bushelsofbushrot@HellsHereNow.com> wrote in message
news:da737g02uuo@enews2.newsguy.com...
And more to consider on this issue that the Star utterly failed to
detail
for its readers:
Excerpts: White House Briefing
Comments on Kyoto Protocol
Fleischer discusses reported end
to U.S. support for treaty
And rightly so. Without China and India on board, why should they sign
on?
Kyoto is a joke, frankly.
Canada has signed on, yet our emissions have increased by 20%. As I
mentioned in my response to Stat, we may yet opt out, as may Japan.
Jane
And, frankly, without the USA on board, being the largest polluter of all,
why should China and India sign on?
Perhaps if "third World" nations were not exempt, the US would sign on...
Jane
I tend to doubt that, but I'd sure like to see what would happen.
;-)
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: China to be "World's Biggest Polluter" Within 15 Yrs |
02 Jul 2005 05:29:42 PM |
|
|
And then, we zoom ahead four years and the Kyoto Treaty is still not
signed on by the USA. A PBS discussion on Feb. 15, 2005, probes the issue
even deeper:
GWEN IFILL: Environmental leaders gathered today in Kyoto, the
ancient capital of Japan, to mark enactment of the global warming pact
that bears the city's name.
The agreement, signed on to by 140 nations, but not the United
States, imposes limits on emissions of carbon dioxide and other
heat-trapping gases.
The U.S. is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
Australia also declined to ratify the protocol.
The goal of the pact, scientists say, is to reduce those greenhouse
gas emissions to 5.2 percent less than they were in 1990, by 2012.
The restrictions designated by the treaty apply to only 35 of the
industrialized countries who signed on, so developing nations like China
and India, who are some of the larger polluters, are not covered by the
new rules.
GWEN IFILL: So, if a major global treaty takes effect and the United
States is not part of the mix, what does that mean?
For that, we turn to Samuel Thernstrom, a scholar on environmental
issues at the American Enterprise Institute. He formerly served in
President Bush's White House Council on environmental quality.
And Jessica Tuchman Mathews is the president of the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace. She previously was a vice president at
the World Resources Institute and served in the Carter and the Clinton
administrations.
GWEN IFILL: Jessica Matthews, 140 nations have signed on. The United
States is not one of them. What does that mean?
JESSICA TUCHMAN MATTHEWS: It means first of all that until we do
act, global warming can't be adequately or effectively slowed because we
account for nearly a quarter of the world's emissions.
All global issues require U.S. participation to address effectively
but this one more than any other because of our energy use.
And it matters in a totally different dimension in a big way which
is that if we want other countries to sign on to our agenda and to back us
up in the war on terror and the other issues that we are pushing in that
dimension, we have to participate in what matters most to them.
And this is an issue that matters very, very greatly to the rest of
the world, particularly to Europe.
Long-term consequences
GWEN IFILL: Sam Thernstrom, does it matter?
SAMUEL THERNSTROM: Certainly it matters. But I do actually disagree
with Jessica that there's a linkage between, say, the war on terrorism and
the Kyoto Protocol.
I think other countries will act in what they believe is their best
interest and the world's best interest on issues of terrorism and national
security regardless of their disagreements with us on issues of climate
change.
GWEN IFILL: But the United States has said not signing on to this
treaty that it was going to cost too much. Economically it would be too
much of a hit. Is that true?
SAMUEL THERNSTROM: Certainly, I think that is very much true. The
Kyoto protocol would have imposed unique obligations on the United States,
while most countries would have had to make fairly modest reductions to
meet the terms of the protocol.
Only the United States has had a very vigorous growing economy since
the baseline year of 1990, which is what the protocol establishes as a way
of measuring our targets.
Because the American economy has grown so much to meet the Kyoto
Protocol goals, America would have had to cut its emissions by 30 percent.
That would be a drastic reduction in energy use in this country and
would have a catastrophic effect on the American economy.
GWEN IFILL: Jessica Matthews, if that's true if there was going to
be a 30 percent cut for the United States, in the short term or the long
term where is the penalty in this?
JESSICA TUCHMAN MATTHEWS: Well, there's a paradox with the long-term
issue. In the short term, when you're dealing with something that's going
to have its effect over decades and decades, nothing that happens over a
very short term makes the difference.
On the other hand, you can never get long-term success until you act
in the short term, so there is that paradox. For example, if we had acted,
begun to act at the time Kyoto was signed, then we wouldn't have anything
remotely like a 30 percent cut.
We would have had the 12 percent that we originally committed to. My
guess is that the economic effect is going to turn out to be the opposite.
That is to say, we will lose the first mover advantage because our
corporations, our industries will not be adapting to the new
energy-efficient world that they are in Europe as they try to meet these
standards.
You know, you think back to 1973, to the first oil embargo. The
United States auto makers lost a third of their market to the Japanese
efficient automobiles.
There is a very important first-mover advantage as you look towards
the future.
The treaty and U.S. relations
GWEN IFILL: But in a case like this, in an agreement like this, in
China and India these big growing economies are not engaged, are not
covered by what the limitations here. What difference does it make?
JESSICA TUCHMAN MATTHEWS: Well, the difference it makes is that, you
know, the reason the treaty was written that way was because the developed
countries had accounted for virtually all of the greenhouse gases that are
already in the atmosphere.
It's the future where China and India are key. The problem you
can't... and therefore, the developed countries, I believe, had to act
first in order to have the legitimacy to go to the developing countries
and say, "even at your very low level of per capita income you have to
begin now to change."
The U.S. can't be part of that because it's now sitting outside the
tent.
GWEN IFILL: And if the U.S. -- let me ask Mr. Thernstrom about
that - is not part of that, countries like Australia, which is also is not
part of the tent, says "why bother to sign on?" The U.S. isn't part of it.
It seems like we're in a, kind of a circular argument here.
SAMUEL THERNSTROM: Well, it is a kind of circular argument, but I do
think it is worth reminding people actually that we are part of a larger
tent the 1992 framework convention on climate change.
GWEN IFILL: What's that mean?
SAMUEL THERNSTROM: That was adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.
And under that convention, the United States has agreed that we should
avoid dangerous interference with the climate.
The United States believes, however, that there are many questions
about still on the table about what would be dangerous interference with
the global climate and what is the best way to avoid that.
So we've decided the Kyoto Protocol is not the appropriate approach
to pursue reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but the United States
Government at the same time spends almost $6 billion a year on federal
climate change programs.
We're doing a lot to deal with climate change. And so the question
is in the long run which approach will be more constructive?
A few years from now we'll have a chance to see whether the Kyoto
Protocol has in fact been effective. And then we can compare the two
approaches.
GWEN IFILL: You wanted to respond to that.
JESSICA TUCHMAN MATTHEWS: Sure. I mean, we're doing very important
research. We're not doing anything to change the way we use energy, which
is the core of this.
We have passed all kinds of voluntary programs. They don't make a
bit of difference, as Sam just indicated. Our energy emissions are
climbing rapidly.
So we can do research until the cows come home but that won't affect
global warming that's happening in the atmosphere. We don't have to be a
member of the Kyoto Treaty in order to make a difference. We can adopt our
own path.
And the Kyoto Treaty is flawed. The problem was that when the U.S.
pulled out four years ago, it didn't put anything in its place.
If the president had said, "we think this is a flawed treaty but we
agree that we have to address climate change and here's what we're going
to do, that would have been one thing." Instead, we said "we don't think
this would be good for us. Not the world but for us."
And the result is-- and I think that while there is no, you can't
say there's a direct tit for tat linkage, there is an overall long-term
issue with the legitimacy of our leadership if we don't take into account
other people's agendas. This is a key agenda.
Signaling global cooperation
GWEN IFILL: I want to pick up on that with Sam Thernstrom because is
there a risk that the United States by not taking part in global treaties
like this or like land mines or other kinds of global treaties that we're
sending a signal, terrorism aside, to the rest of the country that the
U.S. doesn't really care about global cooperation?
SAMUEL THERNSTROM: Well, certainly I think that every time America
disagrees with the world, that has some effect on global opinion of
America and may affect the general international goodwill on some issues.
But as I said earlier, I think it's very unlikely that countries
will choose to not work in cooperation with the United States on issues of
great interest to them.
GWEN IFILL: Because the U.S. is too powerful to ignore?
SAMUEL THERNSTROM: Because the U.S. is too powerful, and because the
issues that America's agenda for the world is in many ways in the world's
self-interest.
I think other countries agree that we should all work together to
combat al-Qaida. Disagreements over climate change aren't going to affect
important things like that.
JESSICA TUCHMAN MATTHEWS: Well, I think we've-- we disagree on the
degree to which credibility of leadership rests on some sense of a shared
sense of obligations and of what matters to us also matters to you.
With climate, we are the 800-pound gorilla. Our per capita
emissions, greenhouse gases are 2.5 times Europe's. And the world cannot,
no matter how hard it tries -- they can't deal with this without us.
But there's other ways I think that are very important to recognize.
This leaves American industries in a quandary because increasingly they
recognize that some day we're going to have to deal with this issue.
But they don't know whether to act because there's no framework,
mandatory framework, for them to act in. So their competitors in Europe
are getting ahead in developing new technologies.
And the other very important issue is that if you agree that at some
point we're going to have to act, the later you delay it, the higher the
costs because the steeper the decline will have to be and therefore the
greater the disruption and the higher the cost.
So that's the paradox that you can delay but at some point we're
going to have to act and the costs will be higher.
GWEN IFILL: Let's talk about that paradox, Sam Thernstrom. You
suggested a few minutes ago that already the United States is attempting
to address that.
It's doing other things, just not this treaty to do something about.
Like what?
SAMUEL THERNSTROM: Well, Jessica is right in saying that the
president didn't put forward a single policy that is easily summarized in
a single phrase like the Kyoto Protocol.
So it's easy to say, well, America is not doing anything.
Just as a few examples: America has an international agreement with
more than a dozen other countries to reduce methane emissions, which are
one of the most powerful greenhouse gases.
America is working with other countries to develop the
infrastructure and the technology to build hydrogen fuel-celled vehicles,
which are zero emission breakthrough technology.
Won't be on the road, you know, this year or next year, but 20 years
from now we might all be driving these clean cars which would totally
change America's emissions profile.
America is building the first zero emissions coal-fired power plant,
which takes the carbon dioxide emissions out of the waste stream from the
power plant and sequesters them, captures them.
So these types of demonstration projects of breakthrough
technologies are the sort of thing that years down the road, in fact, we
might be able to make truly drastic reductions in our emissions at a much
lower cost than we could today.
Achieving Kyoto goals
GWEN IFILL: Finally, do we know based on the countries who have
signed on to this treaty, U.S. aside, whether the goals that these
countries have set for themselves, you say the Kyoto Protocol is flawed --
can they be achieved in the time they set for themselves?
JESSICA TUCHMAN MATTHEWS: I think overall they probably can. Some
countries like Germany have set a much higher target than their Kyoto
target.
I think the United Kingdom, Great Britain is moving very, very
aggressively and others as well. Some will fall short. But on balance, I
think they probably will.
GWEN IFILL: And briefly?
SAMUEL THERNSTROM: Actually I'm much more skeptical as to whether or
not other countries will meet the Kyoto targets. And if they do meet them,
I think they will largely meet them simply by buying credits from the
Russians.
So, we'll see in a few years. I welcome the protocol coming into
effect. I think it's time to see if it actually can do its job. A few
years from now we can have a new debate about how to go forward.
GWEN IFILL: Sam Thernstrom and Jessica Matthews, thank you both very
much.
SAMUEL THERNSTROM: Thank you.
"Doc" <bushelsofbushrot@HellsHereNow.com> wrote in message
news:da737g02uuo@enews2.newsguy.com...
And more to consider on this issue that the Star utterly failed to
detail
for its readers:
Excerpts: White House Briefing
Comments on Kyoto Protocol
Fleischer discusses reported end
to U.S. support for treaty
13 March 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
------
Following are excerpts from the March 28 White House press
briefing,
containing responses of White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer to
questions concerning reported Bush administration plans to end U.S.
support for the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. The United States
signed
the protocol in 1997.
Following is the White House transcript:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
March 28, 2001
QUESTION: Did you ever straighten out all the muddled answers on
Kyoto?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ask a question, and I'll try to give you an answer.
Q: The question is, where do we stand on Kyoto? Have we pulled
out?
What is -- is there movement now to pull out and so forth?
MR. FLEISCHER: The treaty, as you know, was signed, but it was not
ratified by the Senate. In fact, the Senate voted 95-0 against
ratification of it. Also on that measure, whether it's enforced or
not --
as you know, under the Kyoto agreement, 55 nations need to submit it,
enforce it to their various governments. Only one nation in the world
has
done so. There are 54 more to go. So the treaty cannot even possibly
even
be in effect. So there's nothing to withdraw from because there is no
treaty in effect.
The President has been unequivocal. He does not support the Kyoto
treaty. It exempts the developing nations around the world, and it is
not
in the United States' economic best interest. The President has directed
his Cabinet Secretaries to begin a review so we can, as a nation,
address
a serious problem, which is global warming. That Cabinet-level review is
underway, and the President looks forward to receiving the results.
Q: Does he think it never should have been signed?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've not asked him that question. It was signed
prior
to him becoming President, so it's a moot question.
Q: Has he read the treaty?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of anybody in government who reads
every page of every treaty except for a very, very few people. But the
President is well aware, of course, of what's in the treaty.
Q: Is it his intention to have the U.S. withdraw from Kyoto?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's what Helen just asked, and I said there's
nothing to withdraw from. The treaty is not in effect. But he opposes
the
treaty. He's made that plain.
Q: But we have made a commitment. I mean, you said there's nothing
to withdraw from. You make a certain commitment when you sign a treaty.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the commitment on the treaty is dependent on
ratification. As you know, the Senate voted 95-0 against ratifying it.
It
also is dependent on actions taken by the international community. When
only one out of 55 nations required to put the treaty into effect has
acted, it's a signal worldwide that others agree with the President's
position on the treaty.
Q: Ari, in the closing days of the Clinton administration there
was
an effort to negotiate an understanding with European nations about some
of the Kyoto protocols dealing with emissions, and those failed. It was
a
frustrating failure for the Clinton administration. Did this
administration look upon that and say, well, if those negotiations, if
Clinton failed, there's no way that we can make any progress; therefore,
you're much more pessimistic about working anything out with Kyoto?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know about that time frame, Major. I know
this has been the President's consistent position from the campaign
forward. And the concern is that most of the world was exempt from the
treaty and the treaty as it currently is written is not in the economic
interests of the United States, as well.
Q: Why not?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because of the huge costs involved that are
disproportionate to the benefits, particularly when most of the world is
exempt.
Q: Well, would he favor making the rest of the world subject to
the
treaty or --
MR. FLEISCHER: You need to await the results of the Cabinet-level
review that the President has directed. ....
Q: On Kyoto, Ari, was there any discussion, and what did the White
House believe the wisdom was of approaching this by saying, we're going
to
throw this whole treaty out, we're going to start from scratch, as
opposed
to going in and discussing with our allies ways of changing the treaty
to
meet the President's concerns?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think you should withhold until you are
filled in on what the Cabinet-level review will show. The Cabinet-level
review is going to be broad, it's going to look at what the President
views as a serious problem, which is global warming. So until they
complete their review I think it's premature to judge what will be in
it.
Q: Why didn't the White House wait until the Cabinet-level review
was done before deciding what to do on the treaty?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the President has always opposed the
treaty.
It's a question of what can we do based on sound science and a balanced
approach as a nation to take action against global warming. That's why
the
President opposed the Kyoto treaty and that's why he has directed the
Cabinet-level review to take place.
Q: That doesn't explain why you couldn't have gone in and said,
look, there are parts of this treaty -- obviously, the developing world
is
not included, and also we think it's too hard on us for economic growth,
so let's figure out ways to change it. And can you give us some
specifics
on the economic cost to the U.S.? What is it particularly that the
President is concerned about in terms of the economic cost?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I have addressed the President's concerns
about the treaty. And as for solutions for global warming, once again,
you
have to wait for the review of the Cabinet-level review. But the
President
does believe that working with our friends and allies and through
international processes, we can develop technologies, market-based
incentives, and other innovative approaches that can combat global
climate
change.
Q: I don't understand. Why not work for change this treaty? That's
what people were originally trying to do? Why not put this on the table
and work with those countries --
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the President opposes this treaty in its
present form. And I think until you see the results of the Cabinet-level
review, it's premature to speculate about exactly what steps the
administration will make. But, obviously, any time a treaty has to be
submitted by 55 of the signatory nations in order for it to go in effect
and only one nation has submitted it, it's an indication that other
nations agree with the United States.
Q: Well, let's be clear. I mean, is this treaty from the United
States' viewpoint, dead, or -- because he opposes it doesn't mean that
you
have abandoned it, necessarily -- has this treaty been abandoned by the
United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: Given the fact that it was voted 95-0 against in
the
Senate, it's a clear sign that there is little support, if any, to --
Q: What nation ratified it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Romania submitted it for it to be in effect --
Romania did.
end transcript
Doc
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43Axe.15907$mK5.1161742@news20.bellglobal.com...
And yet we exempt them from Kyoto until at least 2012!
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1120083012292&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
Excerpt:
"Second only to the United States in emitting the greenhouse gases
that
cause global warming, China is destined to become the world's biggest
polluter within 15 years. Demand for coal-fired power plants that
belch
carbon dioxide fumes into the air is soaring faster than
environmentalists
like Yang can catch their breath.
Seven of the world's 10 most polluted cities are in China, where filth
invades your eyes and coal dust clogs your throat. Yet here in the
southern
province of Guangdong, which bills itself as factory to the world,
conservation is a hard sell."
Jane
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: China to be "World's Biggest Polluter" Within 15 Yrs |
02 Jul 2005 04:40:59 PM |
|
|
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43Axe.15907$mK5.1161742@news20.bellglobal.com...
And yet we exempt them from Kyoto until at least 2012!
2012 is certainly better than *never* which is the case for the world's
biggest polluter.
Stat.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1120083012292&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
Excerpt:
"Second only to the United States in emitting the greenhouse gases that
cause global warming, China is destined to become the world's biggest
polluter within 15 years. Demand for coal-fired power plants that belch
carbon dioxide fumes into the air is soaring faster than environmentalists
like Yang can catch their breath.
Seven of the world's 10 most polluted cities are in China, where filth
invades your eyes and coal dust clogs your throat. Yet here in the
southern province of Guangdong, which bills itself as factory to the
world, conservation is a hard sell."
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: China to be "World's Biggest Polluter" Within 15 Yrs |
02 Jul 2005 06:52:17 PM |
|
|
"MonsieurStat" <monsieurstat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:JRDxe.10220$Ai.833376@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43Axe.15907$mK5.1161742@news20.bellglobal.com...
And yet we exempt them from Kyoto until at least 2012!
2012 is certainly better than *never* which is the case for the world's
biggest polluter.
Soon to be replaced in that dubious title by China and/ or India. (BTW,
Canada is as bad or worse than the US on a per capita basis. We have
nothing to crow about!)
How do you know China will sign on in 2012? There is talk that Cnada and
Japan may actually opt out at that point (I posted the article some time
ago)
Uncle Wally would say it is all moot as the world ends in 2012 according to
the Mayan calendar, :)!
Jane
Stat.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1120083012292&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
Excerpt:
"Second only to the United States in emitting the greenhouse gases that
cause global warming, China is destined to become the world's biggest
polluter within 15 years. Demand for coal-fired power plants that belch
carbon dioxide fumes into the air is soaring faster than
environmentalists like Yang can catch their breath.
Seven of the world's 10 most polluted cities are in China, where filth
invades your eyes and coal dust clogs your throat. Yet here in the
southern province of Guangdong, which bills itself as factory to the
world, conservation is a hard sell."
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: China to be "World's Biggest Polluter" Within 15 Yrs |
02 Jul 2005 07:33:39 PM |
|
|
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SMFxe.11147$Ai.842814@news20.bellglobal.com...
"MonsieurStat" <monsieurstat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:JRDxe.10220$Ai.833376@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43Axe.15907$mK5.1161742@news20.bellglobal.com...
And yet we exempt them from Kyoto until at least 2012!
2012 is certainly better than *never* which is the case for the
world's
biggest polluter.
Soon to be replaced in that dubious title by China and/ or India. (BTW,
Canada is as bad or worse than the US on a per capita basis. We have
nothing to crow about!)
How do you know China will sign on in 2012? There is talk that Cnada
and
Japan may actually opt out at that point (I posted the article some time
ago)
Uncle Wally would say it is all moot as the world ends in 2012 according
to
the Mayan calendar, :)!
Jane
Well, the world either ends in 2012, or it staggers on for another 20-30
years after that date until we're all choking to death. Maybe we'll still
be waiting for US-based corporations at that future date to get a strict
environmental mandate from the government...you know, we the people, of
the people, by the people, for the people--the ones who breathe the air,
drink the water, eat the foods, fight the wars, consume heavily...and pay
our taxes.
Doc
Stat.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1120083012292&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
Excerpt:
"Second only to the United States in emitting the greenhouse gases
that
cause global warming, China is destined to become the world's biggest
polluter within 15 years. Demand for coal-fired power plants that
belch
carbon dioxide fumes into the air is soaring faster than
environmentalists like Yang can catch their breath.
Seven of the world's 10 most polluted cities are in China, where
filth
invades your eyes and coal dust clogs your throat. Yet here in the
southern province of Guangdong, which bills itself as factory to the
world, conservation is a hard sell."
Jane
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: China to be "World's Biggest Polluter" Within 15 Yrs |
03 Jul 2005 07:44:55 AM |
|
|
Jane wrote:
And yet we exempt them from Kyoto until at least 2012!
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1120083012292&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
Excerpt:
"Second only to the United States in emitting the greenhouse gases that
cause global warming, China is destined to become the world's biggest
polluter within 15 years. Demand for coal-fired power plants that belch
carbon dioxide fumes into the air is soaring faster than environmentalists
like Yang can catch their breath.
Seven of the world's 10 most polluted cities are in China, where filth
invades your eyes and coal dust clogs your throat. Yet here in the southern
province of Guangdong, which bills itself as factory to the world,
conservation is a hard sell."
Jane
OTOH, China has 4 times the population of the United States and is just
having its industrialization period. Besides, doesn't it seem bizarre
to have countries pulling the same kind of stunts that little kids pull
when they've done something wrong? "But Johnny was doing it!!!"
If we're the world's leader, we should be setting the example like a
parent, rather than whining like a little kid.
That said, I'm opposed to the Kyoto accord precisely because it does not
require "green" standards for those developing countries who are set to
out-emit the US.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: China to be "World's Biggest Polluter" Within 15 Yrs |
03 Jul 2005 04:57:29 PM |
|
|
But is a start, rather than just talk about is it or is it Not a
factor.
A consensus has to be established.
LB
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: China to be "World's Biggest Polluter" Within 15 Yrs |
05 Jul 2005 11:36:23 AM |
|
|
Jane wrote:
And yet we exempt them from Kyoto until at least 2012!
It's all good, Jane, they're not America so it's ok if they and India
spew more pollution into the air.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: China to be "World's Biggest Polluter" Within 15 Yrs |
05 Jul 2005 01:47:11 PM |
|
|
<Could-Dani-Be@AnyDumber.com> wrote in message
news:1120581359.856e710db176e93e506f545afdc71c8b@teranews...
Jane wrote:
And yet we exempt them from Kyoto until at least 2012!
It's all good, Jane, they're not America so it's ok if they and India
spew more pollution into the air.
That seems to be what Doc was saying.
Jane
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: China to be "World's Biggest Polluter" Within 15 Yrs |
02 Jul 2005 04:33:32 PM |
|
|
Too bad China has 3 times the population eh?
They did not even mention India either, right next to China also
contributing to the "Brown Cloud of Asia"
LB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: China to be "World's Biggest Polluter" Within 15 Yrs |
02 Jul 2005 06:49:02 PM |
|
|
<leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:1120340012.906470.285130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Too bad China has 3 times the population eh?
Exactly.
They did not even mention India either, right next to China also
contributing to the "Brown Cloud of Asia"
Yes, and India also has a much larger population.
Jane
LB
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
