Well it was published on December 11 – I mean to say, December 11 1997. The US had just put a wrecking ball through the Kyoto protocol. George Bush was innocent; he was busy executing prisoners in Texas.
Nice line of course, but given that there was one execution in Texas in December 1997 I don\’t think "busy" really captures it.
When George Bush announced, in 2001, that he would not ratify the Kyoto protocol, the world cursed and stamped its foot.
Erm, George, you do understand American politics do you? The President doesn\’t ratify treaties. The Senate does. And under Clinton there was an indicative vote something like 95-0 against ratification. It\’s simply not in the President\’s power to insist upon something like this: propose, influence, yes, but not insist.
In July 1997, the Senate had voted 95-0 to sink any treaty which failed to treat developing countries in the same way as it treated the rich ones.
He does in fact mention it, but seems not to get the implication.
But underlining his complaint is something very puzzling. He\’s against emissions trading, insisting that each country must reduce its own emissions. Why? This is vastly more expensive than trade: as emissions are a global problem we don\’t actually care where reductions come from, we just want them to come at the lowest cost.
But then George has never really understood trade, has he?