Jewish World Review Nov. 7, 2001 / 21 Mar-Cheshvan, 5762
Debra J. Saunders
More hot air on global warming
AS negotiators are confabbing in Marrakech to work out the details of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the Kyoto-lovers are using the Sept. 11 attacks as a reason why President Bush should embrace global warming treaty after having walked away from it earlier this year.
While enviros dutifully treat Kyoto as an inviolate document, Kyoto is a hoax. It is the emperor's new clothes of diplomacy that allows haughty Europeans and enviros to berate the tackiness of President Bush's attire. Credit Bush for seeing the nakedness as they brandish their worthless paper.
Forget the hysterical claims about global warming causing floods, famine and insect-borne diseases. MIT's Richard S. Lindzen -- who is on the National Academy of Sciences panel that global warming alarmists love to cite -- has testified that global warming could be "beneficial" and that carbon dioxide increase will result in "minimum impacts."
When negotiators met in Bonn in July, they happily patted themselves on the back for having cobbled together a deal on the pact -- which is supposed to cut global greenhouse gas emissions worldwide by 5.2 percent by 2012. As The Washington Post reported, "The final compromise was struck when Japan was satisfied that penalties against countries that fail to meet the Kyoto targets would not be legally binding."
That is: Negotiators were uncorking Champagne for consensus on a toothless document.
Now they're in Marrakech meeting to work out legal language to codify the Bonn agreement. Japan's environmental attache, Yutaka Nakao, noted that once again negotiators are discussing if, when and how treaty countries could make the pact legally binding, with enforceable penalties for countries that fail to meet the Kyoto targets. "If it doesn't meet our requests, we have to decide" whether to ratify it, he added.
From Marrakesh, Jennifer Morgan, of the Kyoto-friendly Worldwide Fund for Nature, explained that the agreement now is not legally binding, but "politically binding."
Politically binding? Hah!
So, there you have it. If negotiators ever put teeth in the pact, industrial nations won't ratify it.
(Japan would be crazy to ratify a legally binding pact. Kyoto would require Japan to reduce its emissions to 6 percent below 1990 levels. Sierra Club spokesman Alex Veitch notes that concessions made in Bonn effectively reduced the target to 2.1 percent of 1990 levels. That sounds like a big difference until you realize that in 1997 Japan was 9.7 percent above 1990 emissions.)
Or they'll vote for a toothless treaty, and congratulate themselves for agreeing to nothing. Sort of like European countries that trash the United States for walking away from the treaty, even though they haven't ratified it.
Or they can pass nothing and blame Bush for walking away from Kyoto. Sort of like the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did when it unanimously passed a resolution this year telling Bush to return to Kyoto negotiations -- with the fine print urging Bush not to agree to a treaty that exempts developing nations (which Kyoto does) or agree to something that would hurt the U.S. economy (which Kyoto would do).
As Glenn Kelly of the anti-Kyoto Global Climate Coalition noted, "The U.S. could do exactly the same thing" -- as Japan in pushing for a toothless pact, while saying they want Kyoto to endure -- "if they wanted to play duplicitous politics with the climate issue."
And the worst of it is, some enviros say that even a Kyoto with teeth is not enough. Greenpeace's Bill Hare told the Los Angeles Times, "Even the protocol's nominal target of 5 percent hardly started the process of making the 80 percent reductions needed to prevent dangerous levels of climate change. "
Eighty percent reductions? All of these years and confabs and hot air and back slapping about greenhouse gases. And to some greenies, it's just
Comment JWR contributor Debra J. Saunders's column by clicking here.
11/05/01Bumped Pakistani's molehill
11/01/01 Freedom snuffed out
10/29/01 Give war a chance
10/26/01 Airline bill needs liftoff
10/22/01 The Riordan Principle
10/19/01 Before America gets tired of the war on terrorism
10/17/01 Patriot games
10/15/01 I was a 'McCainiac,' and I have seen the light
10/12/01 University of Censorship's fall semester
10/11/01 Poor little rich boy, Osama
10/07/01 Don't feed Israel to the beast
10/05/01: bin Laden is not our Frankenstein monster
10/04/01: Where no man has gone before
09/26/01: Who's bloodthirsty?
09/26/01: What's to understand?
09/20/01: Barbara Lee's line in the sand
09/14/01: You gotta love this country
09/13/01: ENTER TERROR
09/11/01: You can't clone ethics
09/06/01: NOW's goal: equal rights for women without equal responsibility
08/30/01: What's love got to do with it?
08/24/01: A clean, well-lighted place for junkies
08/20/01: Bush should stand up for justice
08/08/01: Don't give Peace (Dept). a chance
08/03/01: Lose a kid, pass a law
08/01/01: Welcome to France, killers
07/30/01: Why it's easy being green (in Europe)
07/26/01: If disabled means expendable
07/23/01: Condit should not resign
07/18/01: Feinstein should learn her limit
07/16/01: A drought of common sense
07/13/01: The catalog has no clothes
07/05/01: It's Bush against the planet
07/03/01: The man who would be guv
06/29/01: Wheeled, wired and free
06/27/01: O, fearful new world
06/25/01: End HMO horrors
06/21/01: Either they're dishonest or clueless
06/18/01: Freedom is a puff of smoke
06/15/01: In praise of going heavy: Yes, you can take it all
06/13/01: McVeigh: 'Unbowed' maybe, but dead for sure
06/11/01: Gumby strikes back
06/08/01: Los Angeles' last white mayor?
06/07/01: Kids will be kids, media will be media
06/04/01: Draw a line in the sand
05/30/01: Just don't call him a moderate
05/29/01: Operation: Beat up on civil rights
05/24/01: Of puppies, kittens and huge credit-card debts
05/22/01: Bush needs an energy tinkerbell
05/18/01: Divided we stand, united they fall
05/16/01: Big Bench backs might over right
05/15/01: Close SUV loophole
05/11/01: Kill the test, welcome failure
05/09/01: DA mayor's disappointing legacy
05/07/01: If it ain't broken ...
05/03/01: They shoot civilians, don't they?
04/30/01: Executions are not for prime time
04/12/01: White House and the green myth
04/10/01: The perjurer as celeb
04/04/01: Bush bashers don't know squat
04/02/01: Drugging our oldsters
03/30/01: Robert Lee Massie exercises his death wish
03/28/01: Cheney's nuclear reactor
03/26/01: Where California and Mexico meet
03/16/01: Boy's sentence was no accident
03/14/01: Soft money, hard reform
03/12/01: Banks, big credit lines and consumer bankruptcy
03/09/01: Free speech dies in Berkeley
03/02/01: When rats have rights
02/28/01: Move a frog, go to jail?
02/26/01: They knew they'd get away with it
02/20/01: How Dems define tax fairness
02/16/01: The jackpot casino Carmel tribe?
02/14/01: You can fight school success
02/12/01: Hannibal -- with guts this time
02/08/01: A family of jailbirds
02/05/01: Reality's most demeaning TV moments
02/01/01: Justice for the non-Rich
01/26/01: Hail to the chiefs of D.C. opinion
01/24/01: A day of mud and monuments
01/22/01: Diversity, division, de-lovely D.C.
01/19/01: Parties agree: Give back the money
01/17/01: Get tough with the oil companies, or forget pumping more Alaskan crude
01/15/01: Mineta better pray that no attending confirmation senator has ever driven to San Jose during rush hour
01/12/01: Europeans should look in the mirror
01/10/01: Dems' reasons for dissin' Dubya's picks
01/08/01: Jerry, curb your guru
01/03/01: A foe of Hitler and friend of Keating
12/28/00: Nice people think nice thoughts
12/26/00: The Clinton years: Epilogue
12/21/00: 'Tis the season to free nonviolent drug offenders
12/18/00: A golden opportunity is squandered
12/15/00: You can take the 24 years, good son
12/13/00: Court of law vs. court of public opinion
12/08/00: A salvo in the war on the war on drugs
12/06/00: Don't cry, Butterfly: Big trees make great decks
12/04/00: Florida: Don't do as Romans did
11/30/00: Special City's hotel parking ticket
11/27/00: No means yes, yes means more than yes
11/22/00: The bench, the ballot and fairness
11/20/00: Mendocino, how green is your ballot?
© 2000, Creators Syndicate