Bush coming around regarding global warming?

[XT]

@RTFirefly

It’s one thing to say, “let’s not do X,” and propose no alternatives, if X is a solution in search of a consequential problem. But global warming, by Bush’s own admission, IS a consequential problem - just one it doesn’t feel like doing anything about, other than tsking Kyoto.

Excellent point! It will be interesting to see if Bush DOES propose some kind of viable alternative (he seems to be proposing something anyway) at the G8 conference…or if its just a lot of hot air and BS. Myself, I’m none too hopeful…

-XT

[Squink]

@xtisme

It will be interesting to see if Bush DOES propose some kind of viable alternative

Perhaps some sort of ‘War On Vampire Moths’? I think everyone would be with him, rather than against him, in taking action on those little bastards.

HELSINKI
Global warming is bringing more… moths that feast on human blood

[John_Mace]

@Martin Hyde

In the United States the President can’t ratify treaties. He can sign them, but they do not become ratified until the Senate votes to ratify. We already had a vote on Kyoto before Bush ever was elected, during the Clinton Administration, and it was defeated something like 97-2, such was its lack of viability.

Yes, but he does negotiate them and then send them on to the Senate. As you noted in your last post, that never happened under Clinton. But that was almost 10 years ago, and things have changed. I think the last 2 years have made a tremendous difference in the public’s perception of Global Warming. People are ready of some kind of action.

However… I doubt that the public would buy into us signing on to Kyoto without China and India being a part, too. I don’t know any Democratic candidates are taking that position, but it seems to be pretty popular on this board. I suspect that any candidate endorsing Kyoto will not be helped by that endorsement (not in the general election).

[Martin_Hyde]

@John Mace

Yes, but he does negotiate them and then send them on to the Senate. As you noted in your last post, that never happened under Clinton. But that was almost 10 years ago, and things have changed. I think the last 2 years have made a tremendous difference in the public’s perception of Global Warming. People are ready of some kind of action.

However… I doubt that the public would buy into us signing on to Kyoto without China and India being a part, too. I don’t know any Democratic candidates are taking that position, but it seems to be pretty popular on this board. I suspect that any candidate endorsing Kyoto will not be helped by that endorsement (not in the general election).

Which reminds me, another point in response to RTFirefly’s comment about “76 months” is Clinton had several years to try and propose some work-around for Kyoto, too. He never sent the protocol to the Senate and neither has Bush, and based on what both politicians have said in the past I think in large part it is because both men recognize that the protocols are not really feasible for the United States, and that they are especially unpalatable in light of the fact that two of the biggest polluters India and China are exempt–especially unpalatable in light of the fact India/China both had HUGE increases in green house gas emissions since 1990. The U.S. emissions have gone up something like 16% from 1990-2004, China’s have gone up 47% and India’s have gone up like 55%. China and India will almost certainly be the two largest polluters in the world in a few years, and they’re totally exempt from Kyoto, China is already possibly in the number one spot and India is rapidly moving up the ranks. As these two economies continue to modernize and industrialize, they’ll only pollute more.

[John_Mace]

Are any of the candidates saying we should sign on to Kyoto? I suspect Kucinich would, but anyone else? I’d be very surprised if any of the top 4 in either party would go out on a limb like that.

[John_Mace]

@Martin Hyde

China and India will almost certainly be the two largest polluters in the world in a few years, and they’re totally exempt from Kyoto, China is already possibly in the number one spot and India is rapidly moving up the ranks. As these two economies continue to modernize and industrialize, they’ll only pollute more.

China isn’t there yet. They are something like 15% of the total (carbon) and we’re closer to 25%. But it depends on how you measure it, and if you look at per capita output, they’re not even close. Now, the earth doesn’t care about per capita numbers, just the total output, but as we negotiate with other countries about what can and should be done, the per capita numbers are important.

[John_Mace]

@John Mace

But not to implement policy, and whatever he does is likely to be changed by his successor before it’s put in place. Same goes for immigration. That might actually be a harder issue to tackle, politically, than global warming.

I just noticed that the article linked in the OP confirms my suspicion. He’s calling for countries to meet and agree on goals during the next 18 months. Then he can hand whatever agreement is reached off to Congress and his successor, and head back to Crawford to clear brush. I don’t for a minute believe he’s serious.

[jshore]

@Martin Hyde

Actually I looked it up. The Byrd-Hagel Resolution passed in the Senate 95-0, stating that the United States should not be a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol because it did not include binding targets and timetables, because it would seriously harm the economy of the U.S., and because it granted exemptions to countries like China.

I believe that the vote was taken in advance of the meeting that drew up the Protocol, so the vote was more of a statement of what our negotiating position should be. It is also worth noting that although Kyoto exempted the non-developed countries in this first round from any binding caps, I think it does say something about how they will be included in subsequent agreements. So, my point is that one cannot consider the 95-0 Senate vote to be a direct vote on ratification of the Protocol, although I admit that it is very, very doubtful that it could have gotten the votes needed for ratification.

Also, as others have noted, a lot has happened since then. In particular, there have been bills proposed, such as the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act, which garnered 43 votes in the Republican-controlled Senate in 2003 (and that the Bush Administration specifically stated they were strongly opposed to). So, clearly, there is a lot more interest in the Senate now in mandatory caps on CO2 emissions in the U.S., independent of what other countries are doing.

[BrainGlutton]

Meanwhile, Bush is cutting funds to monitor global warming from space.

[ElvisL1ves]

Seems more like an attempt by Rove to limit the damage to GOP candidates next year by softening their image, not anything substantive. Calling for a new study to decide what to do is a wonderful-sounding way to avoid actually doing anything, of course.