Climate and Control

The two-week U.N. conference on global warming in Montreal has ended. President Clinton spoke criticizing President Bush for his rejection of the Kyoto Treaty to limit CO2 production. CNN has the story:

Deal reached at climate conference
More than 150 nations agreed Saturday to launch formal talks on mandatory post-2012 reductions in greenhouse gases -- talks that will exclude an unwilling United States.

For its part the Bush administration, which rejects the emissions cutbacks of the current Kyoto Protocol, accepted only a watered-down proposal to enter an exploratory global "dialogue" on future steps to combat climate change. That proposal specifically rules out "negotiations leading to new commitments."

And Clinton's comments:

Former President Clinton, a Kyoto supporter, appeared at the Montreal meeting on its final day and urged nations to unite to confront the threat.

The United States is the world's biggest greenhouse-gas emitter, and Clinton's vice president, Al Gore, was instrumental in negotiating the treaty protocol initialed in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan -- a pact the Senate subsequently refused to ratify.

When Bush rejected Kyoto outright after taking office in 2001, he said its mandatory energy cuts would harm the U.S. economy, and he complained that major developing countries were not covered.

Emphasis mine -- the Senate refusal was by a vote of 95 to zero against. Here is an excerpt from President Bush's letter on the subject:

As you know, I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. The Senate's vote, 95-0, shows that there is a clear consensus that the Kyoto Protocol is an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns.

As you also know, I support a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy that takes into account the importance of improving air quality. Consistent with this balanced approach, I intend to work with the Congress on a multipollutant strategy to require power plants to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. Any such strategy would include phasing in reductions over a reasonable period of time, providing regulatory certainty, and offering market-based incentives to help industry meet the targets. I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act.

Read the whole thing to understand his thoughts -- he is definitely taking a good long view of the entire situation, not just buying into the CO2 hysteria currently prevalent. It is nice to see Nuclear Power starting to gain traction again. It makes the most sense overall...