The kanji they share is the same kanji you’ll see in Beijing and Nanjing. It means “capitol”. Tokyo is “Eastern Capital”, Beijing is “Northern Capital”, and Nanjing is “Southern Capital”. I can’t remember what the other kanji in Kyoto means (it isn’t “western”, though), but that city was the “Capital” before Tokyo.
Terrifel: “Both sides” = “Both political parties”.
Well, it’s not like the treaty doesn’t have it’s own problems without the US being involved. China has said that it’s not going to meet it’s targets, India’s apparently said something similar, and the Europeans are now worried that if they go all out and do hit their targets (which seems unlikely), it’ll kill their economies. Certainly something needs to be done, but it’s looking like this isn’t it.
I’m open to the “Kyoto has big problems, here’s what we need to do instead” argument, if this Administration’s willing to make it in an honest sort of way.* But the first part without the second is simply avoiding the problem.
*Yeah, I know: this Administration? Honest? In what universe?
Pshaw. Details, details 
Ah, so. Thanks for the clarification. Once again, this is an interpretation I would not have arrived at on my own.
Here’s what Bush thinks we need to do instead. You may not agree, but you’re wrong when you say he’s only offered criticism.
I think it’s a matter of tact and restraint in politics, things that seem to be disappearing (IMHO) as time goes by. Which can’t (or at least shouldn’t) be legislated (or even written down), again, IMHO. Circumstances and customs change. And I don’t think there’s a difference regarding the audience to which they speak.
I’m seeing a February 2002 date on that. So, that’s all been pushed through Congress years ago, right? How’s it working out so far?
Right wing fantasists believe this when their side is in office:
The New York Post was wrong: Bush the Elder criticized Clinton’s foreign policy many times, as documented here.
Let’s take a sampling of Bush-I quotes and compare it to allegations of being factually “flat wrong”.
[ul]
[li]The Clinton administration, you’ll remember, began by attacking my administration and the Europeans for being weak and rewarding aggression, and they vowed to get tough. But a few months later, they were essentially where we were. They backed away from their bluster, but not without sending the unfortunate impression of a weak and inconsistent US leadership to the world.[/li][li] While campaigning with Dole days before the 1996 presidential election, Bush suggested that Clinton had compromised the "integrity of the White House. “What matters to me now is the integrity of the White House,”[/ul] [/li]
Other examples are cited in the link.
I also missed the part in that document where international treaties are discussed.*
I find the idea that having a climate policy is in itself a big accomplishment, or at least noteworthy, to be hilarious.
It’s not difficult to find problems in the Kyoto framework. Such problems do not justify an almost exclusive reliance on limp wristed “Voluntary standards”.
I’ve read the summary, and I’m not sure if there’s any ‘there’ there. AFAICT, it amounts to no more than passing some tax credits, funding a minimal amount of research, hoping that advancing technology reduces the growth of carbon emissions, and waiting until 2012 to review how it’s working out.
Can we say it one more time?
Hope is not a plan.
It’s true that in recent times former presidents have generally restrained themselves from criticizing the administration in power. People may have grown unaccustomed to hearing such criticism. Perhaps that makes it a tradition or an unwritten rule. If so, it’s hardly been a permanent feature of American politics. Theodore Roosevelt, for example, left office in early 1909, but in 1912 broke with the Republicans to form a new party and run against his successor. I think that qualifies as criticism of the current administration by a former president.
Why? They are one of the biggest culprits.
In the very first paragraph (after the preamble) he proposes using Greenhouse Gas Intensity (ratio of emmisions to economic output) instead of absolute emisssion.
This is the major difference. He’s proposing a different metric. I’m not sure how you could’ve missed that.
Here’s a Pew Center article that analyses the White House proposal.
Oh, I see the metric, but I missed the part where there was a concrete strategy for realizing the goal defined in terms of that metric.
I can set a goal of being a billionaire, after all.
And the part about waiting until 2012 before examining whether the goal is being met - that was pretty impressive too. That should be enough time for the polluters to say, “Hey, we’re past the point of no return on global warming - why bother to do anything about it now?”
Remember what started our discussion? This:
The Kyoto protocol doesn’t tell countries how to reduce emissions-- all it does is sets goals. You don’t like Bush’s goals, fine. But your original complaint was that he hadn’t offered any alternatives to Kyoto. That was incorrect, as I’ve shown.
The other key problem that Bush has with Kyoto is the excemption of Developing nations like China and India. He wants them included. Now, you can argue aout whether that’s a good idea or not, but it’s yet another proposal he’s made to fixing (what he sees as) the problems with that treaty. And that was one of the main problems Congress had it with it as well (refer to my earlier post about the Senate vote during Clinton’s administration).
I think you misunderstand; you’re equating Bush to the wrong thing here. All Kyoto does is set goals - but it’s up to the countries to come up with the concrete plans to meet those goals.
The countries have to find a way to try to meet the goals because they signed a treaty saying they would.
Bush hasn’t signed anything committing the U.S. to anything but hoping things will work out well. Again, hope is not a plan.
That’s a criticism, not an alternative proposal. Biiiig difference.
An alternative proposal would say to what extent developing nations would be included. So, what is Bush willing to commit the U.S. to do, if the developing nations are willing to commit themselves to doing whatever it is he’d like them to do? That’s what it takes to be an alternative proposal.
Aside from the Bush admin’s nonnegotiating position, I might add that their metric is rather convenient.
They propose targetting greenhouse-gas-emissions-divided-by-the-economy’s-output. It’s a voluntary, nonbinding target, of course.
Such targets are easier to hit, given the declining share of manufacturing in the US economy and the increasing share of services.
Now I am not a climate scientist. But I’m guessing that most of them would say that global climactic change responds to the level of total emissions irrespective of the economy’s output.
But hey, scientific or regional expertise hasn’t affected GWB policy in the past. Let’s create some other targets:
[ul]
[li]Greenhouse-gas-emissions-divided-by-human-population (insufficiently ambitious)[/li][li]Greenhouse-gas-emissions-divided-by-total-federal-debt[/li][li]Greenhouse-gas-emissions-divided-by-the-number-of-"#3"-AlQuada-Leaders-Captured[/li][li]Greenhouse-gas-emissions-divided-by-corporate-welfare-payments[/li][/ul]
The possibilities are endless.
Of course he hasn’t proposed a plan to meet the Kyoto goals, beause the US is not a signatory to the treaty. And it matters little whether he signs the treaty if Congress won’t approve it. Clinton signed the treaty, and never even submitted it to Congress for approval. Where did that leave us?
At any rate, I’ve show that he made an alternative proposal to Kyoto, and if you won’t recognize that, then there’s not point in me repeating myself.
Not necessarily. You need to have those countries on the table first, then you talk about what goals they need to meet. I don’t see anything wrong with that process.
About 189 countries participated in the Montreal conference. cite.
These included Non-annex I parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This list is composed of developing countries such as China and India.
I think it’s fair to say that everybody is “at the table”. I’m surprised that this is a matter of controversy to some. Don’t get me wrong: China and India will on occasion “walk out” on talks. So might the US govt. if they don’t like the speaker selection. But neither constitutes an absolute boycott of the proceedings.
Radical hypothesis: the Bush admin is throwing a span in the proceedings. The idea that China and India haven’t agreed to sit down is an excuse so far untied to evidence.