US Opposes Kyoto, Opposes GHG Trading, Opposes Kyoto Successor

[hatrack]

President George W. Bush's top environmental aide defended Monday Washington's opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, saying the world should already be mulling options for after the landmark pact runs out.

In Brussels for talks with his European Union counterparts, James Connaughton said requirements of the 1997 protocol were simply too costly for the United States.

Specifically he dismissed as "inappropriate" the option of trading in greenhouse gas emissions, a system launched by the European Union this year as a way of encouraging companies to cut their production of carbon dioxide.

"The (US) president is pursing a strategy that is aimed at advancing economic growth, not subtracting from economic growth, and therefore emissions trading is not a useful tool," Connaughton told a small group of reporters.

EDIT

http://www.terradaily.com/2005/051121143809.qlsl0qpc.html

So, why the fuck do we even bother sending people to these gab-fests? Oh, yeah, to torpedo the efforts that other countries make to deal with the issue, that's it!

[spindrifter]

1. And who do we send

to these talks? Croneys?

[Canuckistanian]

2. The (US) president is a fucking idiot

Who is this James Connaughton?

[hatrack]

3. Chimpy's "go to" guy on environmental issues

As in "Go to that conference and fuck things up, OK James?"

"Yessir, Mr. President."

[Canuckistanian]

5. He will be reviled through the ages

Years from now, children will ask, "Who caused this, Daddy?".
And they will answer, "Why, it was James Connaught, the antichrist, and a bad man named Bush. Now go to sleep. We have to find food in the morning."

[Dead_Parrot]

4. "The US official said...

...Washington would be an "active" participant in the discussions"

So, saying "No" to everything and everyone counts as activly participating? I must need a new dictionary.

[rfkrfk]

6. states could join the emmisions trading arrangement,

since none of them have, I kinda assume
popular support for this is low,
as I would think this would be popular
in progressive states such as Oregon
or New York.

[ReaderSushi]

7. I don't think so.

I am almost certain that individual states can not be a party to international treaties, that is the role of the Senate. Even if they could, do you really think Bush & Co. would allow it?

It is really depressing to be twenty-five years old and to know what sort of future awaits...sigh...

[rfkrfk]

8. states could pass state laws, paralleling international agreements

for example, state 'XX' could pass a law
requiring the lowering of greenhouse gas emmisions
to a level of 93 percent of the 1990 l;evel,
mirroring the Kyoto treaty.

all states currently keep a greenhouse gas inventory.

I'm sure some sort of arrangement could be worked
out for emmisions trading.
The good part is, shrub would be completely cut out of the deal.

It is appalling that progressive states do not give their
constituents the benefits of lower emissions.