DEAUVILLE, France: Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty, European diplomats have said.
The future of the Kyoto Protocol has become central to efforts to negotiate reductions of carbon emissions under the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, whose annual meeting will take place in Durban, South Africa, from November 28 to December 9.
Developed countries signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. They agreed to legally binding commitments on curbing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming.
Those pledges expire at the end of next year. Developing countries say a second round is essential to secure global agreements.
But the leaders of Russian, Japan and Canada confirmed they would not join a new Kyoto agreement, the diplomats said.
They argued that the Kyoto format did not require developing countries, including China, the world’s No. 1 carbon emitter, to make targeted emission cuts.
At last Thursday’s G8 dinner the US President, Barack Obama, confirmed Washington would not join an updated Kyoto Protocol, the diplomats said.
The US, the second-largest carbon emitter, signed the protocol in 1997 but in 2001 the then president, George W. Bush, said he would not put it to the Senate for ratification.
Agence France-Press, 29 May 2011
h/t to Dr. Benny Peiser
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I figured Kyoto was dead a while back when Japan announced it would not take part anymore. No doubt they may find themselves relying more on fossil fuel for their power needs in the future after recent issues with their nuclear power. Not agreeing with it, but that seems to be how things happen….
Deep down most (perhaps all) in the current Canadian governing party are skeptics, but the much of my fellow Canadians seem unready to hear that message in public. Fortunately, actions speak louder than words and the Torries’ “do nothing” approach was the smartest move they could have made all things considered.
@Patrick Guinness: May 29, 2011 at 10:38 am
“And what is the point about lying about Bush’s role?”
Bush was not a favorite of the French. Bush won’t call them out about it. Most of their readers wouldn’t question it. Therefore, no downside. Free cheap shot.
Almost Romm-ian, but not nasty enough.
I didn’t realize George W. Bush was president in 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000…
I wouldn’t doubt it. After all, now he seems to have somehow gotten his hands on the Teleprompter: At last Thursday’s G8 dinner the US President, Barack Obama, confirmed Washington would not join an updated Kyoto Protocol, the diplomats said.
“They agreed to legally binding commitments on curbing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming.”
Blamed for global warming. A refreshing choice of words.
“On July 25, 1997, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, along w ith 93 other senators (with five senators not voting and none voting in opposition) adopted a resolution stating that ‘the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto.”
The vote was 95 to zero
“The US, the second-largest carbon emitter, signed the protocol in 1997 but in 2001 the then president, George W. Bush, said he would not put it to the Senate for ratification.”
This is the scenario the left wing media would like to have you believe.
Here is the real scenario
Gore may have signed the treaty in 1997, this required Senate Ratification to take effect.
Under Clinton the Senate rejected the treaty circa 95 to zero. No Democrat supported the treaty
Clinton never formally put the treaty before the Senate for approval. The media never criticized Clinton for doing nothing.
Three years passed and nothing was done by Clinton.
After Bush got elected and took office in 2001, (three years after Gore signed it) Bush said he would not put the treaty to the Senate for Ratification, the same action Clinton took. The same Democrats who did not vote for the treaty under Clinton criticized Bush constantly for backing out.
The media had a bird accusing Bush of being a polluter, while they never criticized Clinton for not asking the Senate to ratify the treaty.
Errors of omission and distortion of the facts still continue by the left.
pat @ur momisugly May 29, 2011 at 10:38 am
Yes, but still it’s even worse in Sweden, Norway and Germany …
In the Scandinavian countries, traditional media are still engaged in deep censorship, probably in Germany too … The politicians would like to keep it this way …
A. The US never signed Kyoto, just because king Willie had his auto-pen prince Albert sign the protocol does not mean a damn thing.
B. The reason Bush did not send it to the senate was clearly spelled out in this speech on climate change. If you, as I had forgotten what an anti-science, denier W was, please read
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushglobal_061101.htm
I echo Pat but would like to add Germany – see No Tricks Zone.
Maybe this development will bring them to their senses and maybe a re-examination of the data and science.
America never joined it in the first place.Because we knew better.
For years after the rejection made in 1997.America was attacked for NOT signing and called many names.
Now we have.France: Russia, Japan and Canada leaving it.
Does that mean should start calling names on those nations as well?
“The US, the second-largest carbon emitter, signed the protocol in 1997 but in 2001 the then president, George W. Bush, said he would not put it to the Senate for ratification.”
This is a misleading statement.It was Al Gore who set it up and President Clinton who signed it.But NEVER submitted it to the Senate for ratification.
The SENATE had already made it clear they would not ratify it as it is:
Byrd-Hagel Resolution
The resolution had a 95-0 vote behind it.That is why President Clinton never submitted it to the senate.He knew it was going to get smashed.
Here is what Senator Hagel said in 2002:
Opening Statement U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel
Joint Hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
and the Environment and Public Works Committee
July 24, 2002
http://epw.senate.gov/107th/Hagel_072402.htm
All this happened before President Bush came along.
Both President Bush and Obama have refused to sign it.Obama who could have done it,when he had that 60 senate majority to work with.Did not for similar reasons why Bush would not sign it.
British Government please note and follow.
Just a reminder about how much we got for our money.
Global Cost: $868 Billion
Global Warming supposedly averted by 2050: 0.009°C
CO2 Emissions Reduction: 0.3%
Cost per 1°C of Global Warming supposedly averted by 2050: $96.4 Trillion
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/11/kyoto-protocol-scorecard-cost-868.html
“The US, the second-largest carbon emitter,…”
Well, maybe, as long as you don’t count whether or not there is carbon being sequestered by forest expansion. I have not seen much to do with forests and their growth in these conversations. Perhaps this aspect could be expanded.
Since the late 40’s Americans have been moving off the land into cities. The acreage of farmland returning to forests has been growing for a long time. The tonnage accumulated has absorbed something like 50% to 80% of all CO2 emitted by the USA. This is a very inconvenient fact though it was addressed in the 90’s by the greens saying that it should not be counted as it had first been cut down in the 1800’s therefore it was not really ‘growing’ and sequestering carbon. Huh.
Well, that fact remains that the US Eastern Forests are continuing to absorb at least 1/2 of all CO2 emitted, maybe 80% and this is not counted when doing the national CO2 emissions accounting. I have no idea as to the accurate number because it is so little discussed.
As far as I know, the USA as a ranked player in the CO2-emitting Games is only producing 20-50% of the claimed output. What is their real ranking?
A fairly courageous move by US, since it’s a slap in the face to China, the main beneficiary of Kyoto. China owns us economically… will there be some form of revenge?
Actually, most forms of revenge would do us a favor in the long run. If it becomes harder to manufacture things in China, we’ll have to start making things here, no matter how much American corporations HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE that idea.
“The US, the second-largest carbon emitter, signed the protocol in 1997 but in 2001 the then president, George W. Bush, said he would not put it to the Senate for ratification.”
Why is there no mention of Clinton putting it up to the Senate for ratification?
He was in office for another 3 years after it was signed.
The UK, NZ and Aus have hung themselves out to dry – unfortunately for people like me who live there 🙁
Good to see some Canadian sanity! But it didn’t take long for the CAGW Alarmists to fire up the printing presses:
“Canada has ‘more to lose than it realizes’: global warming report on Arctic”
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Canada+more+lose+than+realizes+Arctic+report/4858961/story.html
“Arctic shipping routes will open but ice highways in jeopardy: study”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/arctic-shipping-routes-will-open-but-ice-highways-in-jeopardy-study/article2038904/
Fom the link in DirkH May 29, 2011 at 10:22 am
“However, the move towards sustainable energy systems can only succeed if, concurrently, the huge potentials for efficiency increase are fully tapped, and changing our wasteful lifestyles is no longer a taboo subject, particularly in the industrialised and industrialising countries.
Several countries are currently planning to increase their use of nuclear energy. The WBGU urgently advises against this, above all because of the not negligible risk of serious damages, the still unresolved issues concerning final storage, and the danger of uncontrolled proliferation. Existing plants should be replaced by sustainable energy technologies as soon as possible, and, in the case of evident safety deficiencies, be closed down immediately. However, the phase-out of nuclear energy must not be compensated by renewed or intensified brown or black coal based energy generation.”
Does this sound so bad.
It is very easy to take the low cost option and become wealthy. Living off the backs of others is simple but not the “right” thing to do.
Some of the comments on this blog simple consider wealth. Where is the consideration for our grand children’s future. You are surely not leaving it to them to sort out our power mess and possibly our GW mess. Very sad
In Canada, after a succession of endless minority (aka “hung”) parliaments, we recently elected a majority, conservative government.
Finally, after years of having to watch their backs over every minor policy move, and somehow trying to square the circle of support for Alberta’s energy resources, and keeping the green lobby from pillorying them in the press, the government of Canada can actually make some genuine policy decisions. I applaud our prime minister for doing what was unthinkable a few short years ago.
In Cancun Japan told the IPCC where to stuff the Kyoto Protocol for 2012. I recall seeing a reference link at WUWT to a climate reconstruction the Japanese did using cherry blossoms etc. to show our current warming is not unprecedented. Can anyone locate the link to that WUWT comment from a Cancun IPCC post ?
This does not mean the spirit and objectives of the Kyoto Protocol are dead. They are merely abandoning the formula of Kyoto because it was unfair when set out and became increasingly unfair as the Chinese economy exploded.
There is too much invested in the CO2 reduction game with its potential for increased taxes, more government control and development of the completely inadequate replacements of alternate energies for abandonment.
Come on Mr Cameron, don’t align yourself with the fanatical Australions or New Zealanders as far as climate change is concerned . Accept that times have changed since the Kyoto farce and sensible countries are accepting that they were misled by the clever global warming scam in 1997. Show leadership by overuling your Secretary for Energy and Climate Change and don’t continue to be misled by those who are shown to have falsified the scare and whose ‘research’ just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Now is the time for courage and to join those sensible nations who have seen the light and who will not sign up to another round of carbon cuts. Please don’t let the UK be the last country in the World to see the light.
People like this aren’t going to give up easily:
http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/3095-germany-sliding-head-over-heels-into-the-eco-dictatorship.html
Expect some absolutely fantastic Big Lies to try to scare the lemmings into line. Hard to imagine how they could top what they have done so far but I am sure they will try.
Have they tried the ‘skeptics are racists’ line yet?
So this is how a dastardly plan for world domination finally ends, not with a bang but a long drawn out whimper instead. Hardly James Bond is it? And hard to see how it can ever be revived.
What is amazing is how a cabal of politically committed but presumably intelligent people imagined it could actually be made to happen and wasted so much of their lives on trying to to bring it about. And must now content themselves with their ill gotten pennies.
Sad, very sad, especially for us poor taxpayers who funded all this stupidity and will continue doing so for a few years yet until it all finally sinks without trace: leaving only echoes behind.
Kindest Regards
Crispin in Waterloo says:
May 29, 2011 at 11:28 am
And look at Canada. Less CO2 uptake in slower growing boreal forest but look at the size of it. And younger regrowing forests suck up more CO2.
Gets even better when you compare it to 12,000 years ago.