U.S. summoned McKenna over Martin comments

[Ani_Ibi]

U.S. summoned McKenna over Martin comments

Prime Minister Paul Martin spoke at the [UN climate] conference earlier this week, and accused the Americans of being deaf to global opinion on the need to sign onto Kyoto. “To the reticent nations, including the United States, I say there is such a thing as a global conscience, and now is the time to listen to it,” Martin said Wednesday.

The U.S. delegation was so upset by Martin’s comments that they demanded and received a meeting with Canadian ambassador Frank McKenna to complain about the remarks, sources revealed Friday, The Canadian Press reported. Martin’s rebuke was seen as cheap electioneering during a campaign for a Jan. 23 vote. Clinton was invited to the summit by the Sierra Club of Canada…

…while many are welcoming him to the event, the U.S. climate team is not. "They haven’t protested formally, but they’re annoyed… “They’re not infuriated, but they’re not thrilled.” As president, Clinton championed the Kyoto Protocol, which sets out limits by which industrialized countries must reduce greenhouse gas emissions and five other gases below 1990 levels by 2012.

However, U.S. President George Bush, pulled out of the accord soon after taking office, saying it would harm the economy. It still has not been ratified by the U.S… As for the U.S. stance, Juniper said that while Bush is opposed to the Kyoto treaty, many others in the U.S. see the benefits of investing in new technologies to fight global warming.

 

[vern_humphrey]

U.S. summoned McKenna over Martin comments

The United States is signatory to the Kyoto Protocols?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

The United States is signatory to the Kyoto Protocols?

I think Clinton signed and then Bush pulled back. Clinton just this minute gave an address in Quebec about the Kyoto Protocol. Bush said that the Kyoto Protocol would hurt the economy and that other means of reducing emissions should be sought.

 

[thestickman]

Keep in mind, the US Senate voted 99-0 to NOT ratify that lousy treaty.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

thestickman:

Keep in mind, the US Senate voted 99-0 to NOT ratify that lousy treaty.

And also that Martin’s government fell due to a non-confidence vote, is limping from corruption allegations due to the Gomery findings in the Sponsorship Scandal, and is in the middle of an election campaign.

 

[rlg94086]

thestickman:

Keep in mind, the US Senate voted 99-0 to NOT ratify that lousy treaty.

Yes. Apparently, there must have been an all-Republican Senate at the time.

This happened while Clinton was president, so Kyoto fans need to quit blaming Bush! All Bush did was formally say “no go” to something Congress wasn’t going to ratify.

 

[MommaKat]

Clinton did not sign the Kyoto Protocols. You may be thinking of the Mexico Protocols. Where we would be a part of the World Criminal court.

 

[rlg94086]

MommaKat:

Clinton did not sign the Kyoto Protocols. You may be thinking of the Mexico Protocols. Where we would be a part of the World Criminal court.

Clinton did sign it in 1998…as is typical with treaties, the president signs it and then brings it to Congress for ratification. The Senate voted it down 99-0. So, all Bush did was toss out an unratified agreement.

It was a worthy (albeit belated) gesture by the president. However, Clinton’s commitment on paper ran into a political brick wall in the Senate. [3] Even prior to Bush’s ultimate rejection of the protocol, legislation demanding emissions regulations was a non-starter. The Senate position was that the treaty placed an unfair burden on developing countries, particularly the United States. In order for the Senate to ratify Kyoto and agree on legislation to implement it, developing countries would need to share in reductions.

inside.bard.edu/politicalstudies/student/PS260Spring03/kyotocol.htm