Kyoto

There are few things that drive me more nuts than having to listen to defenders of the Kyoto Treaty pin its failure on the Bush Administration. It is absolutely clear that Bush does not support this treaty, however via the SF Chronical, Washington Post reporter Shankar Vedantam repeats the fallacy of Bush's contribution to its demise:

The global environmental movement calls it a historic victory, but critics in the industry and elsewhere say the bang could end in a whimper: Emissions of carbon dioxide will continue to rise, many of the cuts in greenhouse gases claimed under Kyoto probably would have happened anyway, and its future could be derailed by the stony opposition of the Bush administration.

A little political science 101--the United States Constitution requires all treaties to be ratified by the Senate, i.e. the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch--you know, the one that Bush and his enviromental hate-squad are in:

“Domestically, treaties to which the United States is a party are equivalent in status to Federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ‘the supreme Law of the Land.’ Yet, the word treaty does not have the same meaning in the United States and in international law.”1 The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines a treaty “as an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation.”2 Under United States law, however, there is a distinction made between the terms treaty and executive agreement. “In the United States, the word treaty is reserved for an agreement that is made ‘by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate’ (Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution). International agreements not submitted to the Senate are known as ‘executive agreements’ in the United States.”3 Generally, a treaty is a binding international agreement and an executive agreement applies in domestic law only. Under international law, however, both types of agreements are considered binding. Regardless of whether an international agreement is called a convention, agreement, protocol, accord, etc.; if it is submitted to the Senate for advice and consent, it is considered a treaty under United States law.

So, pray tell, how did the Senate vote on this bill? 95-0: unanimous rejection of the treaty. Here were some notable Senators that voted for the rejection of Kyoto:

• Boxer (D-CA), Yea
• Biden (D-DE), Yea
• Byrd (D-WV), Yea
• Daschle (D-SD), Yea
• Feinstein (D-CA), Not Voting
• Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
• Kerry (D-MA), Yea
• Moseley-Braun (D-IL), Yea
• Murray (D-WA), Yea
• Wellstone (D-MN), Yea

When it comes down to it, no thinking person can put an argument together to support this treaty. Reading further in the SF Chronicle article, a Kyoto supporter reveals her hand:

"The greatest value is symbolic," said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, an independent research and advocacy organization that works with many large companies interested in addressing the risks of global warming.

Symbolism? How can one even argue with that logic? At the end of the day its all about good-hearted people and their fabulous intentions, not solving actual problems. Reducing emissions is a noble cause that deserves serious solutions, but the "good-hearted people" won't solve much if the world is enveloped in a brown, Los Angeles-style inversion and they respond by waving their origami fans while cerimoniously cursing Bush with all the good intentions they can muster.