Clinton signed what I believe was a tentative statement of nations agreeing to fully work towards a globally ratified Kyoto treaty. Now, there are a few possibilities why he did this:
He thought Gore would win the elections, facilitating the ratification later on;
He wanted to look good for the outside world, and didn’t want to leave office with the rest of the world hating his guts (like back home ;));
He wanted to embarrass Bush, should he win the elections.
I honestly don’t know what the real answer is, but the simple fact remains that the POTUS signed the same tentative agreement other world leaders signed, and his successor reversed that decision. Again, I’m not going to blame this entirely on Bush, I’m just trying to explain how this came across from an outside perspective.
I’m not sure of his motivations either…IANAL but Clinton is, and I doubt very much he’d have signed something that was binding on the US without Congressional approval. Seems unconstitutional or something. And Bush really wasn’t in the picture back then…no, he and Gore were probably just committed and would have remained committed to global climate change policy. I can believe that.
But the finished product…the US being the worst ‘offender’ also means we’d have the toughest job of compliance, so it becomes a serious economic issue more so than any other country. Thus the Congressional condemnation makes sense too. Someone really has to be on top selling the thing, for the greater good and no guarantee of success.
So no offense to the Europeans or anything, but Kyoto was in no way “US policy”, and not even Clinton would bring it to an actual vote. Bush is not a fan of it, but even if he was he also does not have the authority to summarily enact Kyoto. What does make sense, to me, is to enact a Kyoto-like plan, to be on the same page so to speak but not a signatory yet. That’s mainly for economic purposes and not to promise people something that makes London or Brussels people happy now, for example, but on the ground means $3B added to fuel costs or people out of work in Philadelphia in three years. Or whatever. It is not an easy thing to do.
Nope - executive orders are signed by the President only, and this procedure is OK with the Supreme Court. It’s part of his constitutional power to deal with other nations.
From a constitutional point of view, executive orders rank below statutes (that is, if they are in conflict, the statute controls), while treaties (ratified by the Senate) rank equally with statutes (if they are in conflict, the last in time controls).
The US can be in violation of its international agreements (under international law) because Congress didn’t pass enabling legislation for an executive order, if the executive order is in conflict with existing laws. But that doesn’t make the president’s signing the order unconstitutional.
Coldie, prior to Clinton’s signing, the US Senate had passed a (admittedly non-binding) resolution rejecting Kyoto 95-0. The damn thing wasn’t going to get ratified.
Admittedly, Bush was making a statement by reversing course - he could, instead simply had let it stay at the Senate, which would either have rejected it or (as the US very often does) tabled it and gotten back to it in 20-30 years.
The options were (1) remain silent and let the Senate come to the result he wanted - rejecting Kyoto, or (2) reject Kyoto himself.
Either way, he was going to win.
As much as I dislike the guy, I gotta respect the fact that here, at least, he took the heat himself.
It is theorized (and I believe it is the prevailing theory) that the desertification of the Sahara region, as well as the desertification of other areas, was largely caused by overgrazing by early nomadic herders.
Turning very large areas from grasslands into desert qualifies as a serious impact on world climate.
Nobody that I know of has a problem with ‘clean’ energy sources. Heck, I’d gladly lease a ‘alternative fuel’ SUV, if one that met my standards was ever offered.
The problem is that alternative energy sources are too damned expensive, for little proven return. Once the costs work out in proven favor of alternative energy, use of it will become widespread in industrialised nations.
Not saying you’re lying, but do you have a cite for this? I’d be interested to read it.
Brutus, as with any new technology, the limited production volume of alternative fuel cars means that most of them are being sold at a loss currently, even though they’re relatively expensive compared to their regular fuel counterparts, and in many cases not half as practical. The development of efficient fuel cells will cost a lot before they’re practically usable (though some hybrid cars seem quite ready for daily use - the Honda Insight and Toyota Prius (?) come to mind) and can be deployed at large.
And even then, it’ll take a huge behavioral change from the buying crowd, especially in the US where gas is so cheap (yes, it is, despite the Gulf War 2.0 premium you’re paying now).
I can see European countries temporarily subsidising alternative fuel cars until they reach a certain critical mass in the market, so it might work. The US - well, such a thing certainly isn’t going to happen under the current administration, meaning that alternative fuel cars will have a struggle ahead of them to get recognised.
Ah, here we go - a “respectable” news source (almost everything noting the vote is from an advocacy website). The Times
BTW, I wouldn’t have thought you were accusing me of lying, even had you not said so. I made a statement of fact, you asked me to support it. That’s the way it should be.
I recall a scene on the old “Welcome Back, Kotter” TV series, in which Kotter told a joke to his wife Julie. He said he learned all he ever needed to know about persistence from his uncle, Joe. Joe was a lumberjack who said he would chop down the Sahara Forest. People laughed at him.