Hillary Says US Ready To Lead On Ruining Economies For Fake Issue

And she is not worried about letting those pesky human rights issues get in the way, either, as we already know

After eight years largely on the sidelines of the international policy debate on climate change, the United States is prepared to lead negotiations toward a new global warming treaty, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday.

“The United States is fully engaged and determined to lead and make up for lost time both at home and abroad,” Mrs. Clinton told delegates from 16 countries at a State Department conference on energy and climate. “We are back in the game.”

Shouldn’t that be 11 years, since Hillary’s husband refused to sign Kyoto, because, as the 95-0 Senate voice vote showed, it would damage our economy for little to no gain? But, she is correct. It is a game. The United States’ target for CO2 reduction was to have been 7%, had we actually ratified it. In fact, it rose by 6.6% between 1997 and 2004, according to the US Dept. Of Energy. The Western EU countries saw theirs rise by 11.3%. All those countries ratified the Kyoto Protocol. And their economies suffered. As the American Thinker points out, emissions from non-signers rose 10%, while signers rose 21.1%, so, signing it was simply done to make countries look good, and nothing else.

The Kyoto accord, which was negotiated in 1997 by the United Nations and expires in 2012, set emissions targets for industrialized nations, but many have not met them. The United States never ratified the treaty, in part because it did not include growing economies like China and India.

And what was that other part, something about it resulting in “serious harm to the economy of the United States,” as the Byrd-Hagel Resolution pointed out. And, remind me, who was president in 1997? Some guy named Clinton. Who did not even submit Kyoto to the Senate for ratification. BTW, Al Gore signing it “symbolically” means zip. But, this is the narrative, that it is all Bush’s fault, and that the issue seemingly started on January 20, 2001. You can see it in this op-ed at the Washington Post from 2005.

The Bush admin basically had the same argument as Clinton, and rightly so. Joining would damage our economy. Funny thing is, we might as well have, since we did better then most signatory countries on CO2 reduction.

Speaking directly to representatives of developing nations, who are skeptical of the motives of the United States and other industrialized countries on the issue, Mrs. Clinton that the United States would not seek to limit the use of energy in the developing world but would help make it cleaner.

Apparently with fairy dust and unicorn droppings. And the point is not to destroy economies while reversing AGW, but simply to slow the process. How does that saying about the cart and the horse go?

Maybe Hillary should talk to her boss about the CO2 output from his plane while doing photo-ops. An average 747 flight from D.C. to NY roundtrip puts out around 236kg of CO2 per passenger. Of course, we do not know who were the passengers on the flight. Yet.

And, Obama plans on a quick flight to St. Louis for a photo-op and town hall on his 100th day. Guess reducing CO2 output is only for the average American, not our “royalty.”

Arctic sea ice growth finished the year in 2008 at the same level as 1979.
The oceans have been cooling since 2003.
Antarctic sea ice is growing, not shrinking.
Sea ice is growing at the fastest pace on record.
Greenland’s glaciers are stabilizing.
There are growing fears of a coming freeze worse than the ice age.
Alaskan Sea Glaciers are advancing for the first time in 250 years.
And, for the second straight year the Earth is, in fact, cooling… not warming.

Permalinks


Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend