Jim Kouri
Bill Clinton revises history in montreal
By Jim Kouri
The US economy does not have to suffer if there is an effort to use existing clean energy and energy conservation technologies in America, former US president Bill Clinton told the United Nations climate change conference in Montreal.
Bill Clinton was invited to the final day of the Nov. 28 — Dec. 9 UN summit at the invitation of the Sierra Club of Canada. While a summit usually lasts a few days, the UN officials needed almost two weeks in the colorful Canadian city. And what better person than Bill Clinton to end a summit attended by a bunch of pikers living the good life on someone else's dime.
Clinton received enthusiastic applause when he said if clean energy technologies are used, the Kyoto targets could be met and surpassed without economic harm. However, the long-winded ex-president never told his enraptured listeners how the Kyoto Protocol would not negatively impact upon the US economy.
"There's no longer any serious doubt that climate change is real, accelerating and caused by human activities. We are uncertain about how deep and time of arrival of the consequences, but we are quite clear that they will not be good," said Clinton.
He denigrated the main US fear about Kyoto — that it would hurt the economy by chaining it to greenhouse gas reductions that were not achievable.
"...If we had a serious disciplined effort to apply on a large-scale, existing clean energy and energy conservation technologies — we could meet and surpass the Kyoto targets easily in a way that would strengthen, not weaken, our economy," said Clinton to applause from the delegates.
If these Clinton whoppers weren't enough he then took a swipe at George W. Bush. It's interesting that only Jimmy Carter, the worst president in recent history, and Bill Clinton, a president who did nothing but campaign for eight years, feel emboldened to routinely criticize a sitting president in foreign countries, usually playing to the left-wing socialists who welcome their comments.
Bill Clinton pointed the finger of blame at America, this time saying, "US President George Bush never backed the plan, saying it would harm the economy. More recently, the US has rejected suggestions it rejoin future negotiations to set emission controls for the period after 2012, when the Kyoto framework expires."
"Bush is flat wrong, " he said.
The former president omitted to mention that many American economists advised US leader to not sign a global warming agreement that either hurt the US economically or that exempted developing nations — like China, India and Brazil, the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions — from emission cuts. As President Bush noted when he rejected the treaty early in his administration, Kyoto violated both of these provisions and thus would not garner Senate ratification and did not merit his support. Senator John Kerry who ran against Bush in 2004 cited the same reasons for rejecting Kyoto.
While Clinton indulged in his usual rhetorical denigration of Bush and his policies, he neglected to mention the fact that Russia's president also opposed Kyoto.
"The Kyoto protocol places significant limitations on the economic growth of Russia," said Andrei Illarionov, who advises President Vladimir Putin on economic issues. "Of course, in its current form, this protocol cannot be ratified,"
Clinton also failed to tell his audience of UN delegates and internationalists that his own Democrat Party opposed Kyoto when the Dems joined the GOP Senators and voted against the protocol by a resounding 95-0. The US Senate told Clinton, "[We} could not support any global warming pact that did not bind developing countries along with developed countries."
No US Senate will ever implement a protocol that so unfairly forces the US to reduce production and energy consumption while allowing polluters like Brazil, India, and particularly China to carry on relatively unaffected.
Not surprising is the fact that some US Senators understood Clinton was acting more out of self-interest than out of concern for the environment and so felt little guilt in opposing the Clinton Administration on Kyoto.
According to the November 1992 edition of the Enron corporate newsletter, "To The Point," the company looked forward to dealing with the incoming Clinton administration. The newsletter noted, "Senator [Al] Gore has been an avid proponent of a strong global warming policy that would lower greenhouse gas emissions."
And the Enron communique noted that Clinton and Gore's support of restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions "should provide a real opportunity for natural gas."
Enron stood to benefit from any government restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions because the company had ownership or financial stake in numerous natural gas and wind power technologies, which produce little or no greenhouse gas emissions.
While the Democrats have had success with linking President Bush to Enron, it was Clinton whom Enron had in its pocket. And Enron wanted Kyoto. In fact, Clinton's statement's on December 9, 2005 is a paraphrase of Enron executive Jeff Keeler's 2001 statement in the Amicus Journal, "You can do something meaningful on carbon without collapsing the economy or causing an energy crisis. We believed that before the Bush announcement [to not sign Kyoto]. We believe it now."
Even Clinton's friend British Prime Minister Tony Blair knew something was rotten in Denmark when Bill kept pushing Kyoto. Announcing that he would be "brutally honest" on the subject of the Kyoto Protocol and its future, Blair stated, "My thinking has changed in the past three or four years ... No country is going to cut its growth." Nations like China and India, picked to be this century's superpowers and notably not covered by the protocol, were "not going to start negotiating another treaty like Kyoto."
As with most of today's liberals, Bill Clinton cares more for the goals of internationalists and less about the goals of his own country. He also displays a clear penchant for building himself up by tearing others down, a sure sign of immaturity. Like so many of his ilk today, while in other countries, he has no shame in criticizing — even lying about — his own country. But then again, Bill Clinton never had shame about anything.
© Jim Kouri
The US economy does not have to suffer if there is an effort to use existing clean energy and energy conservation technologies in America, former US president Bill Clinton told the United Nations climate change conference in Montreal.
Bill Clinton was invited to the final day of the Nov. 28 — Dec. 9 UN summit at the invitation of the Sierra Club of Canada. While a summit usually lasts a few days, the UN officials needed almost two weeks in the colorful Canadian city. And what better person than Bill Clinton to end a summit attended by a bunch of pikers living the good life on someone else's dime.
Clinton received enthusiastic applause when he said if clean energy technologies are used, the Kyoto targets could be met and surpassed without economic harm. However, the long-winded ex-president never told his enraptured listeners how the Kyoto Protocol would not negatively impact upon the US economy.
"There's no longer any serious doubt that climate change is real, accelerating and caused by human activities. We are uncertain about how deep and time of arrival of the consequences, but we are quite clear that they will not be good," said Clinton.
He denigrated the main US fear about Kyoto — that it would hurt the economy by chaining it to greenhouse gas reductions that were not achievable.
"...If we had a serious disciplined effort to apply on a large-scale, existing clean energy and energy conservation technologies — we could meet and surpass the Kyoto targets easily in a way that would strengthen, not weaken, our economy," said Clinton to applause from the delegates.
If these Clinton whoppers weren't enough he then took a swipe at George W. Bush. It's interesting that only Jimmy Carter, the worst president in recent history, and Bill Clinton, a president who did nothing but campaign for eight years, feel emboldened to routinely criticize a sitting president in foreign countries, usually playing to the left-wing socialists who welcome their comments.
Bill Clinton pointed the finger of blame at America, this time saying, "US President George Bush never backed the plan, saying it would harm the economy. More recently, the US has rejected suggestions it rejoin future negotiations to set emission controls for the period after 2012, when the Kyoto framework expires."
"Bush is flat wrong, " he said.
The former president omitted to mention that many American economists advised US leader to not sign a global warming agreement that either hurt the US economically or that exempted developing nations — like China, India and Brazil, the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions — from emission cuts. As President Bush noted when he rejected the treaty early in his administration, Kyoto violated both of these provisions and thus would not garner Senate ratification and did not merit his support. Senator John Kerry who ran against Bush in 2004 cited the same reasons for rejecting Kyoto.
While Clinton indulged in his usual rhetorical denigration of Bush and his policies, he neglected to mention the fact that Russia's president also opposed Kyoto.
"The Kyoto protocol places significant limitations on the economic growth of Russia," said Andrei Illarionov, who advises President Vladimir Putin on economic issues. "Of course, in its current form, this protocol cannot be ratified,"
Clinton also failed to tell his audience of UN delegates and internationalists that his own Democrat Party opposed Kyoto when the Dems joined the GOP Senators and voted against the protocol by a resounding 95-0. The US Senate told Clinton, "[We} could not support any global warming pact that did not bind developing countries along with developed countries."
No US Senate will ever implement a protocol that so unfairly forces the US to reduce production and energy consumption while allowing polluters like Brazil, India, and particularly China to carry on relatively unaffected.
Not surprising is the fact that some US Senators understood Clinton was acting more out of self-interest than out of concern for the environment and so felt little guilt in opposing the Clinton Administration on Kyoto.
According to the November 1992 edition of the Enron corporate newsletter, "To The Point," the company looked forward to dealing with the incoming Clinton administration. The newsletter noted, "Senator [Al] Gore has been an avid proponent of a strong global warming policy that would lower greenhouse gas emissions."
And the Enron communique noted that Clinton and Gore's support of restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions "should provide a real opportunity for natural gas."
Enron stood to benefit from any government restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions because the company had ownership or financial stake in numerous natural gas and wind power technologies, which produce little or no greenhouse gas emissions.
While the Democrats have had success with linking President Bush to Enron, it was Clinton whom Enron had in its pocket. And Enron wanted Kyoto. In fact, Clinton's statement's on December 9, 2005 is a paraphrase of Enron executive Jeff Keeler's 2001 statement in the Amicus Journal, "You can do something meaningful on carbon without collapsing the economy or causing an energy crisis. We believed that before the Bush announcement [to not sign Kyoto]. We believe it now."
Even Clinton's friend British Prime Minister Tony Blair knew something was rotten in Denmark when Bill kept pushing Kyoto. Announcing that he would be "brutally honest" on the subject of the Kyoto Protocol and its future, Blair stated, "My thinking has changed in the past three or four years ... No country is going to cut its growth." Nations like China and India, picked to be this century's superpowers and notably not covered by the protocol, were "not going to start negotiating another treaty like Kyoto."
As with most of today's liberals, Bill Clinton cares more for the goals of internationalists and less about the goals of his own country. He also displays a clear penchant for building himself up by tearing others down, a sure sign of immaturity. Like so many of his ilk today, while in other countries, he has no shame in criticizing — even lying about — his own country. But then again, Bill Clinton never had shame about anything.
© Jim Kouri
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
