BS: Kyoto Treaty - Was US Right? -PART TWO

Subject: Kyoto Treaty - Was US Right? -PART TWO
From: Skeptic
Date: 11 Apr 01 - 01:30 PM

The Old Thread is here if I did the blicky right.

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto Treaty - Was US Right? -PART TWO
From: Skeptic
Date: 11 Apr 01 - 01:32 PM

Ooops. Forgot to close it.

Old Thread

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto Treaty - Was US Right? -PART TWO
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Apr 01 - 01:36 PM

Now, can someone tell me why Clinton did not sent the Kyoto agreement to Congress for ratification? It was completed during his term and he had three months to deal with it.

Congress doesn't ratify treaties. The Senate does.

Could it be because the last 3 months of Clinton's presidency were a political firestorm and he didn't want it to get buried under all the wrangling? That would be my first guess.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto Treaty - Was US Right? -PART TWO
From: UB Ed
Date: 11 Apr 01 - 02:00 PM

The president is empowered to negotiate treaties. No treaty can go into effect, however, until it is approved by two-thirds of the Senate.

Hard to say why Bill didn't send it on. We could speculate that it could have provided a nice diversion from his firestorm.

Or did he suspect Congress would reject and/or sit on it?

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto Treaty - Was US Right? -PART TWO
From: GUEST,UB Dan
Date: 11 Apr 01 - 02:02 PM

All Senators belong to congress not all Congresspersons are senators. Nobody doubts that the last three months of the Clinton presidency was a political firestorm, but during that time some things did get accomplished. I believe the implication was that though we all recognize that Bush us against the treaty, we must also recognize that there is a possibility that it was also not a high priority for Clinton. I'm not saying it is so...I'm just saying its possible. Below is some information on U.S. treaty ratification. I looked it up because I didn't know and it seemed readily accessible. Interesting info on executive agreements as well.

http://apgovernment.virtualave.net/review.html

The legislative branch of the government is made up of the United States Congress. Congress is divided into two legislative houses: the House of Representatives, in which representation is apportioned according to state population; and the Senate, in which each state has two representatives. A person must be 25 years old to serve in the House. Senators must be 30 years old. Congresspersons must be citizens of the United States and must reside in the district (House) or state (Senate) they represent.

Negotiation of treaties. Again, the president is empowered to negotiate treaties. No treaty can go into effect, however, until it is approved by two-thirds of the Senate.

The president visits leaders of other countries to negotiate treaties and other important issues. Such negotiations are often subject to congres- sional approval; however, Congress traditionally allows the president a great deal of independence in conducting foreign affairs. Furthermore, the president can arrive at executive agreements with foreign nations, which do not require Congressional approval but which have the same force as a treaty .

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto Treaty - Was US Right? -PART TWO
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Apr 01 - 02:07 PM

We can make up all sorts of reasons why somebody didn't do something. It's all speculation and all worth the same amount, which is nothing.

I stand corrected on the "congress" thing.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto Treaty - Was US Right? -PART TWO
From: Skeptic
Date: 11 Apr 01 - 02:09 PM

Why does it matter who did/didn't send it to where. The fact that Clinton did nothing with it speaks to Clinton. Bush's action and in-action stands alone.

I wonder why Bush doesn't just send it to the Senate and let them deal with it? (other than not wanting to risk them actually passsing it).

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto Treaty - Was US Right? -PART TWO
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Apr 01 - 02:10 PM

Could have something to do with the money that lined his pocket during the campaign too, which came in part (large part) from big companies that pollute big.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto Treaty - Was US Right? -PART TWO
From: GUEST,UB Dan
Date: 11 Apr 01 - 02:32 PM

"We can make up all sorts of reasons why somebody didn't do something. It's all speculation and all worth the same amount, which is nothing." mousethief message 1

[Why didn't Bush send Kyoto deal to Congress] "Could have something to do with the money that lined his pocket during the campaign too, which came in part (large part) from big companies that pollute big" mousetheif message 2

There is a little bit of discrepency between these two remarks....but I must agree that Skeptic has a good point when he says Bush's actions must be considered on their own. From the earlier thread, you'll see that this is still a bad deal that would have cost the U.S. more money and would not have changed actual emmissions. I think the new EPA standards that are set to be implemented by 04 or 05 and especially the California standards for vehicle emmission standards will be much much more effective in actually addressing the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto Treaty - Was US Right? -PART TWO
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Apr 01 - 02:38 PM

Wondered if anybody would call me on that.

Then again I never said my opinion on why Bush is scuttling the deal was worth more than nothing, did I?

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto Treaty - Was US Right? -PART TWO
From: GUEST,UB Dan
Date: 11 Apr 01 - 03:12 PM

Thanks for the laugh...I guess I have no better idea of "why" either.

The difference between us is, I guess, that I don't disagree with the outcome. Actually, when it comes down to it, I guess the real disagreement is in whether we feel the Kyoto Treaty would actually effect positive change.

OF course we may just both be giving vent to our political leanings and using this as a case study :)

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto Treaty - Was US Right? -PART TWO
From: Troll
Date: 11 Apr 01 - 06:13 PM

Maybe- just maybe- it was a bad treaty. After all, Japan has never ratified it either. I think Clinton didn't send it up to the Hill because he knew it wouldn't pass and left it for Bush to deal with. I don't think Bush could get it passed either.
If it was so critical,why didn't Clinton push it harder. It's just like the arsenic thing. Clinton waits until the last minute to sign the new standards into law, knowing that they are not only unnecessary but outrageously expensive to implement and leaves Bush holding the bag.
The EPA report stated that it would cost billions to implement the new standards and millions each year to maintain them . In the meantime, the EPA estimates that the new standards would save 28 statistical lives per year at a cost of OVER 60 million dollars per life. At present, the EPA rates a life at 4 million dollars. In other words, if they can save lives at a cost of less than 4 million dollars per life, the idea is economically feasible.
In short, while there are a lot of places that the country needs to look at public safety, this isn't one of the more urgent, to say the least.
But, of course, having done your research, you all know this already. Don't you?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto Treaty - Was US Right? -PART TWO
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Apr 01 - 06:33 PM

If baby Bush had said he was on favour of the treaty which has daddy had been in favour of, the sensible thing to do for Clinton would have been to leave it until after the election, at which time whichever of the two candidates had been elected on a pledge to support the treaty would be in a better position to push to get it ratified.

That's the naive version,

The cynical version would be that he anticipated that if Bush won he would promptly rat on his pledge, and would get seriously damaged by the hostile reaction he would get, and by the damage it would cause to American interests world wide.

Incidentally, and I suppose this is thread drift - I was watching an episode of Star Trek, and this Ferengi daemon appeared, and bingo, I realised why Bush was so familiar. Cartoonists have played with the image of him as a chimpanzee, and it has some merit - but the reality is far closer to Ferengi. The mannerisms, the body language, the way he laughs, the eyes...

(Any Ferengi reading this, please don't be offended by the comparison. There are some significant differences, fortunately for you.)

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto Treaty - Was US Right? -PART TWO
From: Skeptic
Date: 11 Apr 01 - 07:15 PM

At the request of the government, the National Academy of Sciences did a study of arsenic in drink water and recommended the levels be lowered to keep the potential cancer risk at or below the EPA mandated rate. The lin

The ?statistical lives? argument is a hotly debated one. Dr. John(?) Graham of Harvard, on tap as the new OMB Regulatory review chief, is one of its main pr oponents. He believes in equating the cost of regulations to the life- years lost and making the decision based on that analysis.

One argument against the theory seems to be that down-plays ignores quality of life issues. At the extreme, the idea could be used to argue that air pollution levels should be lowered enough to reduce the risk of lung cancer but reducing it to combat asthma and emphysema might not be cost effect becasue it didn?t impact ?statistical lives?, just life quality. It's not like you can't give them oxygen bottles. Probably covered under a government program, too.

Unanswered (so far as I can find on a cursory search) is why the WHO supports the stricter standard. The search continues.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto Treaty - Was US Right? -PART TWO
From: UB Ed
Date: 12 Apr 01 - 08:47 AM

I didn't realize Mssrs. Townsend and Daltry had weighed in on this one...