National Pride: George W. Bush's Unfortunate Arrogance

[paul_peciak]

" I told the world, I thought the Kyoto was a lousy deal for America... " - GWB
This is the height of arrogance for me.
He is worried about American economy, what is more important... the well being of the planet or the well being of the American economy?!? No planet = no economy. Georgy boy could be diverting some of that war money into the country instead of trying to fix other countries when there is a **** storm inside the country he represents. What makes this even more ridiculous is that America is the front runner in producing the greenhouse emissions, something like 25% of the total... I don't mean to bash on America... its George I have a problem with..

 

[russ_watters]

As the title implies, the President of the United States' #1 priority is the well-being of the United States.

And don't forget - Kyoto was signed in 1997, 4 years before Bush became President. Clinton didn't support it either.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

" I told the world, I thought the Kyoto was a lousy deal for America... " - GWB
This is the height of arrogance for me.
He is worried about American economy, what is more important... the well being of the planet or the well being of the American economy?!? No planet = no economy. Georgy boy could be diverting some of that war money into the country instead of trying to fix other countries when there is a **** storm inside the country he represents. What makes this even more ridiculous is that America is the front runner in producing the greenhouse emissions, something like 25% of the total... I don't mean to bash on America... its George I have a problem with..

\rant

I really, really, really detest George Bush and everything him and his cronies stand for, if they left power tomorrow I'd throw a party, and the rest of the world would be happy they'd gone too. Well apart from Tony Blair obviously, but those who aren't buried in his political mire would be cheering from the roof tops.

George Bush, anti science, pro money(although great at wasting it) Anti freedom,anti-abortion. anti common sense, anti sanity. /rant

OK monthly rant about the Bush administration over.

The US will change eventually, but only when a decent sensible government is in power. Whilst Bush is in I wouldn't expect common sense to be much in evidence, or consideration for anything except money and big business interests, that'll be the neocons for you, don't you just loathe them and every pointless short sighted ideal they stand for?

 

[Panda]

If you remove logic from the statement.

GB needs public support not only to stay in power but also to guarantee lucrative post presidential appointments.
Those who are worried about the environment and world peace are not his core voters, so why bother buttering them up.
Those who think the universe revolves around the USA and the rest of humanity come second are his core voters.
Therefore his statements are targeted towards those people who will keep him high in opinion polls, making him a appear to be popular, making him a good catch as puppet director of some company.
He could gain popularity by looking for the green vote, but a large chunk of the target group would be hard line Democrat, he will alienate those republicans who think that the USA should come before the environment in Africa, and most importantly alienate those big poluting oil industries who are going to offer him his next job.

Therefore I propose that GB may actualy fully support the ideals of Kyoto but it will not benefit him therefore he will publicly oppose it; especially as supporting it will not change the world in his presidency, and will scfrew his long term career plan.

 

[paul_peciak]

Russ russ russ...you proud american you. haha
President Bill Clinton signed the agreement in 1997, but the US Senate refused to ratify it, citing potential damage to the US economy required by compliance. In 2001, George Bush pulled the US out of the Kyoto accords as one of the first acts of his presidency. Bush dismissed Kyoto Protocol as too costly, describing it as "an unrealistic and ever-tightening straitjacket."BTW Tony Blair is on his way out this year, they've had enough of him.

 

[russ_watters]

From your other thread:

The US is a HUGE contributer to this problem that is why it is important the US to get there s**t together.

Agreed. But shouldn't a treaty that in name is meant to deal with the problem actually deal with the problem? The treaty focuses on the US, but doesn't do anything about the much bigger problem of China.

China's coal output is currently increasing at 13% a year (compared with less than 2% for the US). By 2009 they will surpass the US in pollution, that's before the 2012 target for achieving the treaty's goals! http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/110

 

[russ_watters]

Russ russ russ...you proud american you. haha
President Bill Clinton signed the agreement in 1997, but the US Senate refused to ratify it, citing potential damage to the US economy required by compliance. In 2001, George Bush pulled the US out of the Kyoto accords as one of the first acts of his presidency. Bush dismissed Kyoto Protocol as too costly, describing it as "an unrealistic and ever-tightening straitjacket."

Crap. I had a reply and lost it. Here's the links I used:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,168701,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-06-12-kyoto.htm

Key quotes:

To keep his cost estimates down, President Clinton envisioned an emissions-trading system in which countries unable to meet the greenhouse-gas reduction targets would get credits for helping other nations exceed the standards. The idea was that when all the treaty's members averaged out their emissions, the world's total output would meet a global target.

For example: If the United States wanted to emit more carbon dioxide one year, it could help Russia get below its emissions standard by paying high-polluting Russian industries to adopt technologies to clean up their dirty plants.

Clinton administration economists say that, in retrospect, their low cost estimates were unrealistic. They assumed that:

China and India would accept binding emission limits and would fully participate in the emissions-trading system, even though they never signed the treaty.
European opposition to emissions trading could be overcome.
Most industries and consumers would quickly adopt new, energy-efficient technologies, such as advanced air conditioning systems and gas-electric "hybrid" cars, without financial incentives.

Todd Stern, Clinton's global warming coordinator, says that the Europeans would likely go along with an unlimited trading system if the Bush administration would return to the negotiating table to produce a revised treaty it could sign. However, he concedes that China won't participate for now.

Leaving China out of a trading scheme would double the Clinton cost estimate, says Joseph Aldy, who helped develop the estimates for Clinton. "We always thought the (emissions) targets were very ambitious," he says. "But the thing that made us really uneasy about our analysis ... was that if our assumptions didn't come true, you could come out with costs that were much, much higher

Even so, Clinton economists say, Bush could have tried to revise the treaty to reflect these new realities

From your other thread:

Its funny that over 160 nations have found nothing fundamentally flawed about the Kyoto Protocol.

Not true:

Of course, the Europeans ultimately conceded to many of the points raised by Clinton administration negotiators in previous talks over the terms of Kyoto, and critics will charge that had they showed the degree of flexibility on view at Bonn during talks last November, President Bush might not have found it as easy to trash the treaty on taking office. The Clinton administration was never happy with the terms of Kyoto, but it kept its negotiators at the table to grind away at the original treaty.

Bottom line: the Clinton admin knew it was flawed when he signed it, know now even their "ambitious" projections ended up being wrong, but it is still Bush's fault for not fixing his mistakes? I guess you can call that support if you want, but I call that not-my-fault-ism.

And for those 160 nations - they know it doesn't help without China, but China won't even agree to the nothing that the treaty contains now! It seems to me then that the main purpose of the treaty is to bash the US!

 

[Panda]

It is all a matter of economics, in the words of the venerable Margery Simpson "We are too poor to have a philosophy". I would like to buy organic food from fair trade suppliers and drive a green car whilst living in an environmentally sound house consuming green energy, but I also have a mortgage to pay.
If Kyoto means that my energy cost goes up by 10% and the cost of food goes up 10% and the cost of clothes and consumer goods go up 10%, I don't want it because my company will not be increasing my salary by 10%.
The US is built on cheap oil, cheap consumer goods, cheap food, cheap cars that are used no matter how short your trip; not quality products at high prices. To enforce Kyoto will mean that China and the US can no longer flood the global market with cheap food and goods and their economies will collapse. No body gives a toss about the environment when there is massive inflation and unemployment.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Aye as ever human life is always the least expensive commodity and the least considered, particularly when they are not your own citizens that are dying; greed is like that though, humanitarianism or responsibility towards others is a poor slave to the mandate of the hardened capitalist.

Do yourself a favour in future never vote in a man who places wealth over human life and never vote for a man who's God is in the skies, then you'll be happy. I here by swear never to vote for a pious or devout man again not after Blair. I seem to have a different definition of what it means to be Christian than Bush or Blair though anyway It's secularists all the way from now on.

 

[denverdoc]

If you remove logic from the statement.

GB needs public support not only to stay in power but also to guarantee lucrative post presidential appointments.
Those who are worried about the environment and world peace are not his core voters, so why bother buttering them up.
Those who think the universe revolves around the USA and the rest of humanity come second are his core voters.
Therefore his statements are targeted towards those people who will keep him high in opinion polls, making him a appear to be popular, making him a good catch as puppet director of some company.
He could gain popularity by looking for the green vote, but a large chunk of the target group would be hard line Democrat, he will alienate those republicans who think that the USA should come before the environment in Africa, and most importantly alienate those big poluting oil industries who are going to offer him his next job.

Therefore I propose that GB may actualy fully support the ideals of Kyoto but it will not benefit him therefore he will publicly oppose it; especially as supporting it will not change the world in his presidency, and will scfrew his long term career plan.

Theres the rub--this is the only real job GWB has ever had besides governor that's he's been able to hold onto

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushresume.htm

If it were my corporation, I wouldn't let the man near it

Said of GWB by a fellow board member, the least likely man I would have considered among all my acquaintences to become president. Course that's in a a meritocracy. I'm sure dad and cronies will find junior a well paying job where he can do minimal damage.