Here's one critique of those accords accounting for why the U.S. withdrew:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA428.html

Do we really want to pay $2.2 trillion for what even optimistic Kyoto supporters say would be climate moderation of one-twentieth of a degree Celsius by the year 2050?

No.

Do we really want to bet a couple of trillion dollars that they can predict what the weather is going to be in 2050?

No.

I agree that the proposal was flawed in many ways, but it would have been great if we had taken the lead in offering a counter-proposal instead of just stone-walling. The U.S. truly is the greatest nation in the world, imo, but there are times when I wish we acted more like we were--especially re. environmental issues. Instead of actually taking the lead in calling the nations of the world to more responsible behavior in this regard, we turn out to be the one perceived to be dragging its heals and crying "foul."

quote:

"I don't want to diminish the threat of terrorism at all, it is extremely serious, but on a long-term global basis, global warming is the most serious problem we are facing."

- Al Gore, once again reminding me how happy I am that elections in this country are decided on the basis of electoral votes.

I agree that the proposal was flawed in many ways, but it would have been great if we had taken the lead in offering a counter-proposal instead of just stone-walling. The U.S. truly is the greatest nation in the world, imo, but there are times when I wish we acted more like we were--especially re. environmental issues. Instead of actually taking the lead in calling the nations of the world to more responsible behavior in this regard, we turn out to be the one perceived to be dragging its heals and crying "foul."

I think that�s a superb point. Necessarily so, conservatives find themselves more often in the position of saying "no" by consequence of their philosophy (although I think Democrats also voted* overwhelmingly against Kyoto). And I know you meant this more as an "America" issue rather than just a Republican one, but Kyoto was surely hatched and promoted by those on the left�perhaps even the mid-to-far left. It would behoove conservatives and Republicans to do just what you said and present their own alternative so that it�s not just a matter of the left pushing hard and then everyone eventually splitting a bad proposal down the middle and settling for half of what the left wants, which is just a victory for the left. Or settling for nothing at all when perhaps at least some rational action was needed. Nature abhors a vacuum. Time for conservatives of all stripes to beat the left to the punch so that it�s not always a matter of just reacting to them. Conservatives, for example, might (if something like this doesn�t already exist) spearhead enterprise zones in third world countries and give tax breaks to businesses in order to help promote the building of a clean energy infrastructure (hydroelectric, wind, solar, whatever) to help third world countries leap past some of the dirtier stages that most cultures will go through. In the west we�re reducing our toxic emissions but I understand that the real threat is when the third world joins in and goes through all those messy stages we did. I might be wrong about this, but it seems to me that instead of trying to strangle the hi-tech industrialized world (especially the U.S.), we ought to appreciate that it is this part of the world that most likely will come up with the hi-tech solutions that will help everyone.

But if the goal is simply to punish the U.S. for being successful, than Kyoto might be just the thing for that.

---

quote:

*Although the United States signed the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate. In July 1999, the United States Senate voted 95-0 to pass a resolution co-sponsored by Sen. Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Hagel (R-Neb.), which stated the Senate would not ratify the Protocol unless rapidly developing countries such as China were included in its requirements to reduce greenhouse gases. The Clinton Administration announced it would not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification.

Interesting.

I guess you've seen that Clinton has come out criticizing Bush for not pursuing Kyoto. Never mind that he had the opportunity as well, but never got it done (thanks in no small part to a 98 - 0 rejection by the Senate). So it smacks of yet another cheap shot by an ex-Democratic President toward Bush!

Yes. It's hard to hear the facts discussed amidst such clamor.