But, despite Bush, the noble and virtuous Bill Clinton may be able to rescue the United Nations Global Warming Crusade (N.B. "crusade is only an improper word in the context of Christianity or nominally Christian nations.) from ennui, cold weather, lack of rock stars, and, above all, from Bush obstructionism.
From a Yahoo! AP article, Bill Clinton to Speak at U.N. Conference :
Bill Clinton to Speak at U.N. Conference By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special CorrespondentIn a surprise visit, former President Clinton will speak at the annual U.N. climate conference Friday, final day of a contentious two-week meeting, the United Nations confirmed.
Bush administration envoys here were said to be displeased at Thursday's news of the unusual appearance — of an ex-president at a critical point in backroom negotiations involving the U.S. delegation.
As president, Clinton championed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to fight global warming, an international agreement requiring reductions in "greenhouse-gas" emissions by major industrialized nations. Soon after he succeeded Clinton, President Bush formally renounced the Kyoto accord, saying it would harm the U.S. economy. [My ellipses and emphasis]
It Is All Bush's Fault!
Including the lack enthusiasm in Congress to back Clinton in this matter. Continuing:
In Montreal, the United States has rejected proposals that it rejoin future negotiations to set emissions controls for the period after 2012, when the Kyoto framework expires.Clinton, who was invited here by the City of Montreal, will speak in an unofficial context in the main conference hall Friday afternoon, said U.N. conference spokesman John Hay.
[…]Clinton's vice president, Al Gore, [(inventor of the internet)] was instrumental in final negotiations on the treaty protocol negotiated in the Japanese city of Kyoto eight years ago. It mandates cutbacks by 2012 in emissions of carbon dioxide and five other gases whose buildup in the atmosphere is expected to disrupt the global climate.
[…] The Bush administration has said it prefers to deal with other governments on a bilateral or regional basis, not through global negotiations, and it favors voluntary approaches. The chief U.S. delegate Paula Dobriansky pointed to $3-billion-a-year U.S. government spending on research and development of energy-saving technologies as a demonstration of U.S. efforts to combat climate change. [My ellipses and emphasis]
How are we to shape up the world on a voluntary basis? Why are we ignoring the agreeableness of international comity, the United Nations, and Kofi Annan?
It Is All Bush's Fault!
And why was America not officially represented by the America's climatological dynamic duo, Clinton and Gore?
That too, Is All Bush's Fault!
But perhaps the noble and virtuous Clinton will be able to invigorate a reportedly lackluster conference.
(The lack of luster being, of course, All Bush's Fault!,)
From a The National [Canada] article, Perhaps Kyoto is Japanese for hypocrisy :
Perhaps Kyoto is Japanese for hypocrisy [/] Dec. 6 2005[…] Well, I suppose in this matter, ecology is not really different from politics. High on sermons, low on example. Maybe it's low-key because the celebrity attendance is sparse. [/] There are not many rock stars there. What's an environmental summit without rock stars? Are they all worn out after making poverty history? That was their summer project, remember. [/] But still, where's Bono? Is he still crushed, or in some sulk from his disappointment with Paul Martin? I'm not sure anymore that Canada is allowed to take on international commitments unless it's alright with Bono. Canada used to be an independent country. Now we're just part of an entourage.
There was a Canadian Press report from Montreal whose lead sentence could have come straight out of Alice in Wonderland. It read "Tens of thousands of people ignored frigid temperatures Saturday to lead a worldwide day of protest against global warming." Wearing earmuffs while chanting, "It's getting hot in here" might be homage to Nellie, but it's not effective salesmanship. [/] At the same demonstration on that brutally cold day, one of the Greenpeace high priests offered a brilliant synopsis of how comprehensively the concept of global warming applies.
He said, and I quote, "Global warming can mean colder; it can mean dryer; it can mean wetter." Well, if warm can mean cold, if warm can mean wet, and if warm can mean dry, is it fair to ask if warm still means warm? This is the beauty of global warming. It's a theory that covers every possibility. More of a tent than a thesis.
The bigger disconnect at this monster seminar goes further than rhetoric, however. It's that Canada's the host of this sequel to Kyoto, and that Canada's performance since Kyoto – and remember, we signed on – is at this date, 24 per cent higher than our 1990 levels. According to our commitment, we're aiming for six per cent lower. So as of 2005, there's a 30 per cent [worse] spread from what we've[, Canada,] promised and what we've done so far.
The U.S., which didn't sign on, is only thirteen per cent higher [(worse)] than its 1990 levels. Still, around the world, the U.S. is the villain for not signing on, while countries like ours, who talk a virtuous environmental line and host King-Kong-scale conferences to celebrate our commitment, pose as the planet's dearest lovers. Perhaps Kyoto is Japanese for hypocrisy. For The National, I'm Rex Murphy. [My ellipses and emphasis]
Poor man, obviously brainwashed and receiving instructions from Bush's minion, Karl Rove.
Rex Murphy needs a tin hat!
And this thought control, beyond the horrors of "1984", is also, obviously, All Bush's Fault!
