Kerry Flip Flop, Kyoto is a UN con?

[wacki]

Just curious on your thoughts on this. For those of you that know me, you know I am for decreasing carbon output into the atmosphere. The point of this thread is two fold, to point out another one of Kerry's tactics of convenience, and to look into how flawed the Kyoto Protocol really is. I will make global warming arguements in late Jan/Feb when I am ready to talk about the subject.

That being said:



Kerry Flip Flops on Kyoto Protocol. Or atleast harshly criticizes the president for doing something he (Kerry) has done multiple times in the past.

Even worse:

The Kyoto Protocol is not, never has been, nor will it ever be, about global warming. It is, instead, an ingenious mechanism to centralize the control of energy availability and consumption. It is the perfect mechanism to enforce the redistribution and equalization of wealth, while eliminating the principle of free markets in the energy industry.

The touted emissions trading scheme advanced by the protocol is nothing more than a wealth-transfer system. For example, Russia, whose industry is in such a shambles that its emissions are already below their assigned target, has "emission credits" to sell, as do most of the developing nations. For American energy providers to stay in business, they will have to purchase credits from a seller nation. American ratepayers will actually pay for those credits, through increases in their monthly electric bills and at the gasoline pump.

This is one of the more conspicuous mechanisms the protocol provides. The U.N. enforcement body is also empowered to dictate the type of energy that may be developed in the future. It has the power to dictate land use by limiting land use changes and requiring massive areas of land to be reserved for carbon "sequestration." Whatever rules the U.N. body wishes to impose, it can impose. Should the protocol ever be ratified by the U.S., ratepayers and consumers would have no recourse. The U.S. has only one vote among the 120 nations that have ratified the protocol, only 36 of which are bound by its provisions.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40835

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1233158/posts

[MMMMMM]

From what little I have read elsewhere of Kyoto, it is absurd (haven't yet read the articles you linked).

My impression is that Kyoto would work something like this: under Kyoto, China would be able to pollute as much as they damn well pleased, while the USA would be buying the right to pollute in measured amounts--from China.

Who is the crackpot who conceived this scheme?

Why are so many so-called "intellectuals" and politicians and U.N.-types so abysmally idiotic? God only knows.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
For American energy providers to stay in business, they will have to purchase credits from a seller nation. American ratepayers will actually pay for those credits, through increases in their monthly electric bills and at the gasoline pump.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know too much about this issue, but this is where the argument seems to break down. Kyoto allows countries to trade emissions credits, but were the US to be required to do so to meet its quota, I see no reason that the buck would necessarily get directly passed to energy providers.

[wacki]

I don't think I really understand what you are trying to say. Extrapolate please.

[lastchance]

He's basically saying that he doubts the companies that provide nrg themselves wouldn't buy it, but the US gov itself would.

[wacki]

Thanks, but it doesn't matter who ends up buying it. I am all for stopping global warming, but the Kyoto plan is a complete sham.

[sam h]

I don't know enough about Kyoto to have a strong position one way or another. What I was pointing out, however, is the argument in the link regarding energy prices does not make sense.

The argument I referred to is about the emissions trading mechanism in Kyoto, which basically says that if one country is below its emissions target it can sell "emissions credits" to another country that is above its target. Now, obviously if the US was above its target and were we to make use of this mechanism, it would cost the government, although how much is unclear. But the article refers to American energy providers needing to directly purchase these "emissions credits" from other countries, which I don't think is even allowed.

The point is that it is the US government that would have to purchase the emissions credits, not private firms. If the government wanted to obviate this situation, it would then have a variety of domestic policy choices such as eating the cost, raising emmisions standards on vehicles, or taxing energy in some fashion. But, knowing our history with this, I would think that the last option would probably be the most politically unpalatable. So I doubt you would see this direct corrollation between joining Kyoto and your monthly gas bill, as the article implies.

It may well be that Kyoto would be bad for the American economy. But then that's the argument that should be made against it, rather than scare tactics about rising energy costs being directly passed on to American consumers.

[adios]

My understaning is that you've got it right. Throw in India as well as China. I can't believe Kerry supports that POS.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Kyoto is dead. Only 2 or three countries have RATIFIED the treaty since the treaty was created in 1997. You got that... In SEVEN YEARS only 2 or 3 countries have ratified the treaty (I don't have the exact count because I'm not sure if the Czech Republic went ahead with their plans to ratify it. Nor do I care enough to google it.).

A dead skunk gets more respect than the Kyoto treaty. No industrialized nation wants to ratify this treaty. Their plan seems to be to pay lip service and wait for the treaty to expire 2010(???). Kyoto is a silly treaty, based on junk science, created by "scientist" who had one too many "atomic wedgies" in school.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Only 2 or three countries have RATIFIED the treaty since the treaty was created in 1997. You got that... In SEVEN YEARS only 2 or 3 countries have ratified the treaty

A dead skunk gets more respect than the Kyoto treaty. No industrialized nation wants to ratify this treaty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, 127 Nations have ratified it and the Media gives it alot of attention despite how much of a sham it is.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6150264/

[wacki]

And if you watched the debate, they gave it attention there. Also, if you read my links, Kerry is using it to slam Bush.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Wrongo...

The Kyoto treaty has been signed by over 100 nations BUT these preliminary signatures by diplomats are NOT binding.... Therefore, they have *NOT* ratify the treaty... If I remember correctly, Al Gore signed for the USA.

When a treaty is "ratified" then it becomes binding. The reporter SCREWED up the story and does not even know the definition of the word ratified. Very typical for the press.

[wacki]

Wow, Felix_Nietsche, do you have any links on this? I never heard that before.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I read it in a magazine. Also, I believe the Rush Limbaugh site has this info but I believe you have to be a member to view it.

Romania was one of the countries that actually ratified the treaty. The Czech Republic was scheduled to ratify the treaty. I haven't bothered to see if they followed through.

I believe the number of countries complying with this treaty is still ZERO...