Tim Worstall

That Climate Agreement

No, it doesn’t mean very much at all:

George Bush last night pledged the United States to a "substantial" cut
in greenhouse gas as the west’s leading industrial nations agreed to
negotiate a new climate change deal within the next two years.

After
strong lobbying from EU leaders, Mr Bush agreed to "seriously consider"
a proposal that would result in a 50% cut in carbon emissions by 2050
but made it clear that US involvement depended on India and China being
included in any agreement.

It’s all too easy to miss the point that the US President actually has a great deal less power in such things than almost all of the European leaders. If Tony Blair signs us up to something then he can get it through Parliament as long as it’s not entirely stupid. Indeed, on the environment, given that it’s a sole European Union competence, if the assembled leaders sign up to it and the Commission agrees, there’s pretty much bugger all that anyone else can do about it.

However, the US President (of any party, this isn’t restriced to Shrub) doesn’t have that sort of power. Any treaty or international agreement has to get through the US Senate, and that’s a very tough proposition. From memory, didn’t Al Gore and Bill Clinton both agree to the original Kyoto? And when it was put to an indicative vote in the Senate, it was rejected 98-2? (Not quite sure about that voting number, but it was close to that.)

Getting whatever agreement there is through the Senate is what counts here, not what a President says at an international meeting.

In

4 responses

  1. Chuckl Avatar
    Chuckl

    The Reverend Al signed the thing amidst great fanfares, but it was never even submitted to the Senate, as both he and Slick Willy knew that it would be a complete waste of time, as it was unlikely to get ANY votes in favour.
    But as any scan of the MSM will tell you GWB ‘killed’ Kyoto in the US of A when he took office.

    Reply
  2. Jean Avatar
    Jean

    Tim – Kyoto was submitted to the Senate and was rejected 95 – 0. The Goreacle didn’t even try the usual logrolling, knowing that the treaty hadn’t a snowball’s chance in hell.

    Reply
  3. embutler Avatar
    embutler

    the above two comments dont quite get it right… the treaty was not given to the senate… they told the prez(clinton) how they thought about it by rejecting it in advance.. 95 to zip..

    Reply
  4. TedM Avatar
    TedM

    The sense of the Senate resolution which passed 95-0 in effect told Pres. Clinton not to submit a treaty for ratification if that treaty did not include China and India. It also said that the treaty must not unduly impact jobs and the economy.
    And, as stated above, the oft repeated statement is the Pres Bush “killed” U.S. participation in Kyoto. It was dead in the U. S. before Pres Bush took office.
    And, of course, Pres Clinton signed the 1998 bill which made regime change in Iraq the national policy of the U.S. and funded Chalabi and his group of exiles. Somehow this too have disappeared from the news.
    In addition, Pres Clinton made unilateral war on Sudan and Afghanistan when those countries had not attacked us.
    For 8 years Pres Clinton engaged in war with Iraq. On numerous occasions the U.S and British aircraft fired missiles at Iraqi ground installations. In addition Pres Clinton had cruise missiles launched upon Baghdad. These acts of war were widely reported at the time.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading