How American cities have bypassed Bush on Kyoto (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

It isnt just Schwartzneggar making agreements with foreign nations anymore, thus bypassing a leaderless Federal executive branch.

The mayors of more than 300 US cities have now signed an agreement to bypass Bush, and join the Kyoto Protocols on global warming.

If Bush wont take the lead, then the People will continue to take away his power. Its as simple as that.

Go, cities, and to hell with the Feds!! Screw 'em. :lol:

Article is here.

 

[TurtleDude]

It isnt just Schwartzneggar making agreements with foreign nations anymore, thus bypassing a leaderless Federal executive branch.

The mayors of more than 300 US cities have now signed an agreement to bypass Bush, and join the Kyoto Protocols on global warming.

If Bush wont take the lead, then the People will continue to take away his power. Its as simple as that.

Go, cities, and to hell with the Feds!! Screw 'em. :lol:

Article is here.

sounds like the tenth amendment is alive and well despite FDR's assassination attempt:mrgreen:

 

[Deegan]

Sounds good, but this country has to operate, and that takes a whole hell of a lot of cars, buses, trains, etc. Move to this country because of these freedoms, then complain about the effect on the environment, please, go elsewhere, or STFU!:roll:

 

[ludahai]

It isnt just Schwartzneggar making agreements with foreign nations anymore, thus bypassing a leaderless Federal executive branch.

The mayors of more than 300 US cities have now signed an agreement to bypass Bush, and join the Kyoto Protocols on global warming.

If Bush wont take the lead, then the People will continue to take away his power. Its as simple as that.

Go, cities, and to hell with the Feds!! Screw 'em. :lol:

Article is here.

Well, they can't "sign" kyoto, but if they want to make goals in their own cities, that is fine - nothing wrong with that. The California move is potentially more meaningful though. It alone is one of the world's largest economies and polluters.

However, while Clinton signed Kyoto, he never submitted it to the Senate - there wasn't support for it with EITHER party. Bush withdrew the U.S. signature, but that was merely a symbolic act because the Senate would have never ratified it. I also don't think it is a good idea to sign into any binding reductions without the Chinese, Indians and other major polluters also required to reduce their emmissions. Heck, Chinese pollution directly affects several neighboring countries, including Taiwan.

 

[jamesrage]

It isnt just Schwartzneggar making agreements with foreign nations anymore, thus bypassing a leaderless Federal executive branch.

The mayors of more than 300 US cities have now signed an agreement to bypass Bush, and join the Kyoto Protocols on global warming.

If Bush wont take the lead, then the People will continue to take away his power. Its as simple as that.

Go, cities, and to hell with the Feds!! Screw 'em. :lol:

Article is here.

As long as I the tax payer don't have to worry about picking up the tab,let them.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

It isnt just Schwartzneggar making agreements with foreign nations anymore, thus bypassing a leaderless Federal executive branch.

The mayors of more than 300 US cities have now signed an agreement to bypass Bush, and join the Kyoto Protocols on global warming.

If Bush wont take the lead, then the People will continue to take away his power. Its as simple as that.

Go, cities, and to hell with the Feds!! Screw 'em. :lol:

Article is here.

Umm do mayors have the authority to make treaties with foriegn powers?

 

[Patrickt]

The Senate was never asked to vote on the Kyoto Protocol, per se, but they did vote to reject any agreement that did not have measurable goals for all countries or an agreement that would damage the U.S. economically. The vote was unanimous. Image that. A unanimous vote on somthing.

And if mayors want to make pointless political statements, fine.

 

[ludahai]

Umm do mayors have the authority to make treaties with foriegn powers?

Biting on the obviously rhetorical question, the answer would be ... uhhhh...

NO!!!!

 

[danarhea]

Biting on the obviously rhetorical question, the answer would be ... uhhhh...

NO!!!!

Its not about signing the Kyoto treaty. It is agreeing to abide by the Kyoto Protocols, which the states and cities can do. As long as they are not signing any treaties with foreign nations, the Federal government has no power to tell them what kinds of limits on greenhouse gasses that cities and states decide they want to implement. This is America, after all, or would you rather have the old Soviet system in place. Hmmmm, come to think of it, there are quite a few on this board who have the gall to call themselves Conservative, but are Collectivist to the core.

 

[Stinger]

If Bush wont take the lead, then the People will continue to take away his power. Its as simple as that.

Go, cities, and to hell with the Feds!! Screw 'em. :lol:

Article is here.

It has nothing to do with Bush's "power" the state and local governments have always been free to impliment such stipulations, even when Clinton was in office.

The question is what are the reprocussions if they don't meet the goals, or is this just empty rhetoric?

 

[Loki]

As long as I the tax payer don't have to worry about picking up the tab,let them.

You know as well as anyone, JR, that the taxpayer always picks up the tab. The problem here is the potential to drive up the cost of doing business and drive up unemployment. These are just the reasons we didn't sign the kyoto accords in the first place.

 

[Stinger]

You know as well as anyone, JR, that the taxpayer always picks up the tab. The problem here is the potential to drive up the cost of doing business and drive up unemployment. These are just the reasons we didn't sign the kyoto accords in the first place.

I'll be happy to let all those jobs come to my city and state when they flee the cities implimenting these requirements on them.

 

[Loki]

I'll be happy to let all those jobs come to my city and state when they flee the cities implimenting these requirements on them.

We've been doing this in the south for quite some time now, haven't we.

 

[Stinger]

We've been doing this in the south for quite some time now, haven't we.

Yes we have, if it isn't the unions it's the liberal governments driving them here.

 

[ludahai]

Its not about signing the Kyoto treaty. It is agreeing to abide by the Kyoto Protocols, which the states and cities can do. As long as they are not signing any treaties with foreign nations, the Federal government has no power to tell them what kinds of limits on greenhouse gasses that cities and states decide they want to implement.

I am in total agreement on this point.

This is America, after all, or would you rather have the old Soviet system in place. Hmmmm, come to think of it, there are quite a few on this board who have the gall to call themselves Conservative, but are Collectivist to the core.

I hope you aren't referring to me.

 

[ludahai]

We can piss and moan about whether or not there's global warming, but anyone with a brain can tell you, in the end, it'd be better if we were using something better than what we're using now. It doesn't take a genius to look at the Chicago skyline from a distance and notice that there's some **** floating around, and it certainly doesn't take a genius to know it'd be better if we weren't sending all of this money to the Iranians and Saudis.

Even if the global warming threat is exagerated, there is still too much surface pollution that obviously needs to be addressed. It is badly affecting the health of many people all around the world, including in the United States. So, this still gives us more than enough reason to cut pollution - but it needs tp be a truly global effort to be effective. Kyoto isn't that. Cities doing it on their own also won't be a significant help.

Also agreed on sending money to the Saudis and Iranians. Heck, the Iranians are using their oil money to help Hezbollah for goodness sake.

Now I have my doubts about Kyoto, but I like the idea of cities making these decisions for themselves, and setting this **** as a priority. Neccesity is the mother of all invention, and we won't know what we're capable of until we place ourselves in a situation where it's neccisary to use all of our capabilities.

Well, the cities doing it on their own is little more than symbolic. State-level action has the most potential effectiveness domestically in the United States. California's bi-partisan effort seems to be taking the lead. However, Kyoto is a bad treaty and states that enforce the standards put themselves at risk of becoming less competitive to states that won't enforce them. When it comes down to it, it needs to be global with real targets that are enforcable and apply to EVERYONE!

 

[Loki]

We can piss and moan about whether or not there's global warming, but anyone with a brain can tell you, in the end, it'd be better if we were using something better than what we're using now. It doesn't take a genius to look at the Chicago skyline from a distance and notice that there's some **** floating around, and it certainly doesn't take a genius to know it'd be better if we weren't sending all of this money to the Iranians and Saudis.

Now I have my doubts about Kyoto, but I like the idea of cities making these decisions for themselves, and setting this **** as a priority. Neccesity is the mother of all invention, and we won't know what we're capable of until we place ourselves in a situation where it's neccisary to use all of our capabilities.

You should have your doubts about the kyoto accord. Both canada and europe have increased carbon dioxide emissions since signing the accords. In point of fact more than the US! Germany looks to be rolling back some of it's efforts to meet the accords and china, is just a plain mess. Their bringing one new coal fired power plant a month and their willingness to keep accurate records of carbon dioxide emissions......leave something to be desired.

A technoligical breakthru might be able to allow us to lower our co2 emissions. We're assuming it's our greenhouse gasses that are the source of the problem. There is some evidence to indicate an increase in solar emisions might actually be the real problem. Another theory I heard indicated the earths rotational path around the sun seems to "vary" leading to too much solar radiation reaching the earth's surface. Another theory suggests the amount of cleared ground could be yet another possible reason. Added to all of this is the fact that both ice ages and warm periods have happened on the planet eons before humans even existed.

I guess my point is, if you want local municipalities to punish their poor to "attempt" to address a problem we don't understand much less control. Go ahead. Be my guest. Just don't complain if you don't get the results you hope for.

 

[Navy Pride]

The Senate was never asked to vote on the Kyoto Protocol, per se, but they did vote to reject any agreement that did not have measurable goals for all countries or an agreement that would damage the U.S. economically. The vote was unanimous. Image that. A unanimous vote on somthing.

And if mayors want to make pointless political statements, fine.

Kyoto is bad news for any industrial country and would cripple our economy........The Senate voted 95-0 to ignore it.......

http://www.businessandmedia.org/news/2005/news20050216.asp

the U.S. Senate, which must approve treaties, was strongly against it. On July 25, 1997, the Senate voted unanimously 95-0 against Kyoto. That vote included Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).

 

[ludahai]

Kyoto is bad news for any industrial country and would cripple our economy........The Senate voted 95-0 to ignore it.......

http://www.businessandmedia.org/news/2005/news20050216.asp

the U.S. Senate, which must approve treaties, was strongly against it. On July 25, 1997, the Senate voted unanimously 95-0 against Kyoto. That vote included Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).

Didn't Kerry criticize Bush on Kyoto during the campaign? Typical liberal hypocrisy!

 

[Joby]

Sounds good, but this country has to operate, and that takes a whole hell of a lot of cars, buses, trains, etc. Move to this country because of these freedoms, then complain about the effect on the environment, please, go elsewhere, or STFU!:roll:

It's not that they've got anything against busses or trains. It's the millions of cars carrying 1 (one) person that are clogging up roads and the atmosphere.

 

[ludahai]

It's not that they've got anything against busses or trains. It's the millions of cars carrying 1 (one) person that are clogging up roads and the atmosphere.

For most people, busses/trains are very time consuming - or simply not available at all.

 

[Navy Pride]

Didn't Kerry criticize Bush on Kyoto during the campaign? Typical liberal hypocrisy!

I think that is where Kerry would say I voted for it before I voted against it......

 

[Navy Pride]

ZING! Oh boy, you sure took that Kerry down a peg!

Its not very hard to do Galen..........This guy was one of the most flawed candidates the dems ever ran......

 

[RightinNYC]

This is fantastic news, and by all means, I encourage city and state officials to do things like this. It will be a nice test run to show the public the actual costs of Kyoto.

I'll happily vote against any candidates who propose to do that in my city, however.

 

[Goobieman]

It isnt just Schwartzneggar making agreements with foreign nations anymore, thus bypassing a leaderless Federal executive branch.

This title is miselading, if not an outright lie.

These cities didnt bypass Bush, they bypassed Clinton and the US senate. Clinton didnt send Kyoto to the senate because the senate said it would not ratify it. Bust withdrew our signature to a treaty of which we were not party to.

Never mind these agreements, if they are with a foreign nation, also violate the US constution.