bipartisan governors embrace Kyoto

[tpub]

A bipartisan group of Northeastern governors is expected to announce an historic agreement this week to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, a plan that would break sharply with Bush administration policy on global warming.

The agreement for mandatory greenhouse-gas emission caps could put the states on the road to compliance with the Kyoto climate-change treaty, an embarrassing rebuke to the president, who made a decision in 2001 to pull the U.S. out of negotiations on the pact. In another repudiation of Bush doctrine, the states say that their move away from fossil fuels and toward sustainable energy will not only benefit the environment but the economy as well.

"I think what you'll see is nearly every Mid-Atlantic and New England state agreeing to join in a regional cap and trade regime," Bradley Campbell, commissioner of New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection, told Salon. Campbell said that Republican governors are expected to sign on to the plan despite backroom coercion by the White House. "Several of my counterparts in Republican-led states have reported active efforts by the Bush administration to pressure them to not participate in a regional program to implement greenhouse gas reductions," he said.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/07/21/emissions/index.html

[Muddleoftheroad]

1. Rebuke

Given Kyoto's reception in the Senate (where it was opposed nearly 100-0), this is a rebuke of our entire political system. Also, it won't happen on a nationwide scale since Kyoto sets unrealistic goals for the U.S.

[revcarol]

2. It was modified after the Senate refused it.

(Several more developed nations also had reservations about the first one.)So they changed it.But the prez, in his infinite "wisdom" refused to even consider the new one.Wouldn't even send an observer to the meetings.

I say, "THREE CHEERS FOR SUPPORTING YOUR PEOPLE'S HEALTH!! THREE CHEERS FOR YOUR COURAGE!! THREE CHEERS FOR RESISTING BLACKMAILING AND STRONG-ARMING OF THE ADMINISTRATION!!"

[baby_bear]

3. Which goals are unrealistic for the U.S.? And why?

Are they unrealistic because the Republicans don't want to alienate their industrial campaign donors? Or are you speaking of some specific scientific or engineering constraints?

s_m

[pmbryant]

4. That Senate vote was a long long time ago

When was it? 1997? 1998?

That's an eternity ago politically.

--Peter