CNN: Clinton 'annoys' US climate team

[TODD]

Clinton 'annoys' U.S. climate team

Ex-president to make surprise speech at U.N. conference

MONTREAL, Quebec (AP) -- A contentious U.N. climate conference entered its final day Friday with the long-term future undecided in the fight against global warming, and with a surprise visitor on tap to rally the "pro-Kyoto" forces.

Bill Clinton, who as president championed the Kyoto Protocol clamping controls on "greenhouse gases," was scheduled to speak at the conference Friday afternoon -- in an unofficial capacity but potentially at a critical point in backroom talks involving the U.S. delegation.

The U.S. envoys, representing a Bush administration that renounced the Kyoto pact, were said to be displeased by the 11th-hour surprise.

"They haven't protested formally, but they're annoyed," a source in the Canadian government, conference host, said of the U.S. delegates. "They're not infuriated, but they're not thrilled."

This source spoke on condition of anonymity because as a civil servant -- not a politician -- he is barred from the public light during Canada's current election season.

The U.S. delegation was meeting late Thursday and had no immediate public comment, said spokeswoman Susan Povenmire.

Clinton, who was invited here by the City of Montreal, will speak in the main conference hall between the official morning and afternoon plenary sessions, said U.N. conference spokesman John Hay.

Despite its unofficial nature, the speech was sure to attract hundreds of delegates from the more than 180 countries represented.

A city spokesman said the ex-president will be representing the William J. Clinton Foundation, which operates the Clinton Global Initiative, a program focusing on climate change as a business opportunity.

Clinton's vice president, Al Gore, was instrumental in final negotiations on the 1997 treaty protocol initialed in the Japanese city of Kyoto. It mandates cutbacks in 35 industrialized nations of emissions of carbon dioxide and five other gases by 2012.

A broad scientific consensus agrees that these gases accumulating in the atmosphere, byproducts of automobile engines, power plants and other fossil fuel-burning industries, contributed significantly to the past century's global temperature rise of 1 degree Fahrenheit. Continued warming is expected to disrupt the global climate.

In the late 1990s the U.S. Senate balked at ratifying Kyoto, and the incoming President Bush in 2001 formally renounced the accord, saying it would harm the U.S. economy.

The Montreal meeting, attended by almost 10,000 delegates, environmentalists, business representatives and others, was the first annual U.N. climate conference since Kyoto took effect in February.

The protocol's language requires its member nations to begin talks now on emissions controls after 2012, when the Kyoto regime expires. Those governments appeared near agreement Thursday on a process for completing such talks by 2008.

But the Canadians and others also saw Montreal as an opportunity to draw the outsider United States into the emission-controls regime, through discussions under the broader 1992 U.N. climate treaty.

The Americans earlier this week rejected the idea of rejoining future negotiations to set post-2012 emissions controls.

But the Canadians continued to press for agreement Thursday, presenting the U.S. delegation with vague language by which Washington would join only in "exploring" "approaches" to cooperative action. The Canadians hoped the wording was sufficiently noncommittal to gain U.S. approval.

The Bush administration says it prefers to deal with climate issues on a bilateral or regional basis, not through global negotiations, and favors voluntary approaches.

As a demonstration of U.S. efforts to combat climate change, it points to $3 billion a year in U.S. government spending on research and development of energy-saving technologies.

---

Now if only the CURRENT president would step up and say/do something...

[Taylor 36]

Global Warming is a myth.

[wskin44]

Global Warming is a myth.

So is George Bush's brain.

[Johnny Punani2]

Kyoto treaty cutting CO2 levels enough to effect global warming is a myth.

Let that fact knock you upside the head about 50 times.

[wskin44]

Kyoto treaty cutting CO2 levels enough to effect global warming is a myth.

Let that fact knock you upside the head about 50 times.

Johnny you are a weather guy. What's your take on global warming? I honestly don't know what to make of it.

[TODD]

Kyoto treaty cutting CO2 levels enough to effect global warming is a myth.

Let that fact knock you upside the head about 50 times.

See, now that myth is a myth.

If we stopped after the Kyoto Protocol ran out, then yes, it would have minimal effect on limiting global warming. BUT, if the countries participated and lowered their levels to those recommended, then by 2012 we could RENEW the Protocol and further the standards even more.

But, if we don't participate in these short term treaties, then we can't build anything long term and nothing will be accomplished. Abstaining from the protocol might be acceptable if we established meaningful and realistic environmental goals ourselves-- but a Hydrogen based economy is not happening anytime soon (marring MAJOR breakthroughs) and we've shown no signs to go any other direction except coal.

This protocol IS short term-- but you can't build anything long term if you don't participate in the short term. The point of the Kyoto Protocol is not to follow these standards through 2012 and then stop; the point is to build off of these initial precedents we will set by lowering our CO2 emissions and create long term goals in the future.

[Destino]

Stop pissing in the pool.

That is the best argument against pollution of every kind. Forget global warming. Forget all the other crap. The bottom line is you drink the water, you breath the air, and you eat the food grown and raised on this planet. Pollution, global warming or not, puts toxins in the air and water supply. This is against your best interests, no matter who you are. So at all times, no matter what your politics may be, it is best to search for ways to decrease pollution.

I'm not saying we should close down the factories. In order to make a difference solutions have to be viable or else they will be ignored and the movement will suffer. So please remind your friends that moan about huggers and laugh at global warming to ignore the lunatics and recognize that less pollution is in everyones best interest.

[Cskin]

What happened to former presidents staying out of the limelight and not inteferring or commenting on the subsequent administation policies? Reagan didn't do it... Bush I didn't do it.... why does Clinton feel he has to comment, even dispute or debate, policies of a new Administration. To me... this smacks of the Liberal elitiest stance... "it's really our govt. and your effing everything up".

Look at that... Mr. Carter does it to. Hummm...what does Clinton and Carter have in common. Aaaaaahh... former Democratic Presidents. Euuureeekkkkaaaaa!!!!

[Winslowalrob]

What happened to former presidents staying out of the limelight and not inteferring or commenting on the subsequent administation policies? Reagan didn't do it... Bush I didn't do it.... why does Clinton feel he has to comment, even dispute or debate, policies of a new Administration. To me... this smacks of the Liberal elitiest stance... "it's really our govt. and your effing everything up".

Look at that... Mr. Carter does it to. Hummm...what does Clinton and Carter have in common. Aaaaaahh... former Democratic Presidents. Euuureeekkkkaaaaa!!!!

Oooh, brilliant! You found out the conspiracy! Back to the underground lab! Why don't you address the issue, I was hoping to have to do the whole partisan mudslinging thing in page 3 or so .

[Taylor 36]

Oooh, brilliant! You found out the conspiracy! Back to the underground lab! Why don't you address the issue, I was hoping to have to do the whole partisan mudslinging thing in page 3 or so .

He may have veered off course a little, but he does have a valid point. It has been widely accepted by ALL of our former presidents that they should and would not undermine any administration after their own administration leaves office.

Despite differences of all magnitudes, every president stayed out of the limelight as far as undermining or uphanding other administrations until Carter broke the unwritten rule, and Clinton soon followed. I'm not trying to politicize it by calling out "dems," but it does/should make one wonder.

[NavyDave]

So is George Bush's brain.

And what does that say about liberals and democrats who continue to lose to him time and time again

[Winslowalrob]

He may have veered off course a little, but he does have a valid point. It has been widely accepted by ALL of our former presidents that they should and would not undermine any administration after their own administration leaves office.

Despite differences of all magnitudes, every president stayed out of the limelight as far as undermining or uphanding other administrations until Carter broke the unwritten rule, and Clinton soon followed. I'm not trying to politicize it by calling out "dems," but it does/should make one wonder.

How many presidents have we had, how many have stayed out of the limelight? We are comparing 4 presidents here, and Reagan may have not been able too. Now, lets talk about the ISSUES here, not the people. If some people here think this is a presidency issue, make a new thread, because it seems like no one wants to talk about global warming stuff, myth or not.

[Winslowalrob]

And what does that say about liberals and democrats who continue to lose to him time and time again

We have no brains.

[NavyDave]

I Guess Slick Willie want his Nobel peace(?) prize now.

[rockANDallstar]

At first I thought you meant Portis and I was like WTF.

[Winslowalrob]

I Guess Slick Willie want his Nobel peace(?) prize now.

I prefer to call him Messiah Willy or Second Coming Willie or Lord Willie. But Slick Willie is just as good I suppose...

[Johnny Punani2]

Johnny you are a weather guy. What's your take on global warming? I honestly don't know what to make of it.

It's a very complex subject. There might be some warming caused by man but how much, what impact it has on the earth, and what the earth does to balance that are the big questions. Certain political groups have taken it and turned it into a tool to push for certain political and economic goals of theirs. People but nature seem to think the worse about problems they have limited knowledge of. Global warming isn't the exception and that is why groups who I just told you about will say or do anything to force their agenda on the masses.

For example, the Kyoto Treaty would force wealthy developed nations to buy CO2 shares from poorer under developed countries to meet strict CO2 limiting guidelines. This is a great example of socialist wealth distrubution on a global scale. It would also put the US at a great economic disadvantage compaired to other nations (India, China, EU). That would weaken not only US economic power but military power in the world. That is why it was voted down 0-99 in the US Senate.

[Johnny Punani2]

See, now that myth is a myth.

If we stopped after the Kyoto Protocol ran out, then yes, it would have minimal effect on limiting global warming. BUT, if the countries participated and lowered their levels to those recommended, then by 2012 we could RENEW the Protocol and further the standards even more.

But, if we don't participate in these short term treaties, then we can't build anything long term and nothing will be accomplished. Abstaining from the protocol might be acceptable if we established meaningful and realistic environmental goals ourselves-- but a Hydrogen based economy is not happening anytime soon (marring MAJOR breakthroughs) and we've shown no signs to go any other direction except coal.

This protocol IS short term-- but you can't build anything long term if you don't participate in the short term. The point of the Kyoto Protocol is not to follow these standards through 2012 and then stop; the point is to build off of these initial precedents we will set by lowering our CO2 emissions and create long term goals in the future.

You agree with what I said but then say it's a myth? Right...:laugh:

Also, you wana talk about the "hydrogen economy" without doing any research into it's possible effects on global climate. I hope you realize that water vapor is a stronger green house gas then CO2 right? You wana curb a substance that effects global warming but then support the buidling of an economy that would put a stronger greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

[Winslowalrob]

It's a very complex subject. There might be some warming caused by man but how much, what impact it has on the earth, and what the earth does to balance that are the big questions. Certain political groups have taken it and turned it into a tool to push for certain political and economic goals of theirs. People but nature seem to think the worse about problems they have limited knowledge of. Global warming isn't the exception and that is why groups who I just told you about will say or do anything to force their agenda on the masses.

For example, the Kyoto Treaty would force wealthy developed nations to buy CO2 shares from poorer under developed countries to meet strict CO2 limiting guidelines. This is a great example of socialist wealth distrubution on a global scale. It would also put the US at a great economic disadvantage compaired to other nations (India, China, EU). That would weaken not only US economic power but military power in the world. That is why it was voted down 0-99 in the US Senate.

How would it put us at an economic disadvantage? How does the treaty force wealthy developed nations to buy shares?

[Johnny Punani2]

How would it put us at an economic disadvantage? How does the treaty force wealthy developed nations to buy shares?

Well, a portion of our GDP would be spent on this CO2 tax. What we would bascically doing is giving another country billions of dollars for doing nothing. Does that sound fair? It is in the treaty itself. Each country has a CO2 limit and the total global CO2 output has a set limit. If you sign that treaty you are now bound to meet the restrictions. If you don't I'm sure you could and would be brought before some governing body like free trade agreements have and fined until you get below the set limit for your specific country or buy CO2 shares from another country to get you below.

India and China are not even in the treaty and the EU would have a great advantage over the US in compliance. The EU is really pushing for the US to sign it because it's a way to try and control the US.

[Johnny Punani2]

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf

Read up....

I can already see the Ad Hominem attacks comming...

[Winslowalrob]

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf

Read up....

I can already see the Ad Hominem attacks comming...

Haha, I don't even know how to pronounce Ad Hominem! Do you support free trade? I really cannot tell by your posts.

And if climate change is a complex issue where simplifications lead to confusion, it would appear that the Kyoto protocol is a complex issue where simplifications lead to confusions as well. Or would you not agree with that?

[wskin44]

I've seen reports that China has the fastest growth in CO2 emmissions in the world right now and that is likely to continue. They are in love with automobiles, just like Americans. As young people move from the rural areas to the cities they eventually buy cars so that they can visit their families.

Why then is China not a participant in the treaty? In the future China will probably have the biggest economy on the planet. Why should we sign an agreement that they aren't willing to?

[Predicto]

There is no question that Kyoto was a flawed solution that bent over too far to appease developing nations, particularly China. Screw Kyoto.

However, to me there also is really no question that global climate change is a real danger, and that this Administration is not taking it seriously enough (and neither did the last administration....)

[chomerics]

It's a very complex subject. There might be some warming caused by man but how much, what impact it has on the earth, and what the earth does to balance that are the big questions.

Yet you agree that we are in a warming period. You also agree that CO2 effects global climate, but you do not know the scope of the effect (albiet it is small when compared with water vapor).

The bottom line is that the earth is warming, but we don't know how much of it is our fault. . . it may be none, or it may be all, but most likely is somewhere in the middle.

You are wrong on the Kyoto treaty though, this would not benifit China and India, and put us at a economic disadvantage to them, if that were the case, they would have swigned the treaty right? No, instead it is the worlds biggest polluters who are saying to bad, we are not going to stop polluting. That is the gist of it, and we (meaning Bush and the republicans) don't want to sign up to it because it would mean their supporters ie. energy and polluters, would have to clean up their emissions.

So yes, it is political, and I recognize the left's groups, you just don't look at the politics on your side to understand WHY Bush is against it.