Re: Hurricanes are getting stronger

[delen...@msn.com]

Bill Habr ha scritto:

/cut/

> 105th CONGRESS, 1st Session, S. RES. 98
>
> Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
>
> (1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other
> agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
> Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter,
> which would--
>
> (A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for
> the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates
> new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas
> emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period,
> or
>
> (B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and

That's right; 'George' has resisted serious actions on global warming
on the basis that strong measures would have wrecked U.S. economy.

> (2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and
> consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed
> explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to
> implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by
> an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy
> of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the
> protocol or other agreement.

Bravo!

> 7/25/1997 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate
> without amendment and with a preamble by Yea-Nay Vote. 95-0

Enjoy *YOUR* hurricanes then..

LOL!

[Bill Habr]

<delen...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1127462100....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Bill Habr ha scritto:
>
> /cut/
>
> > 105th CONGRESS, 1st Session, S. RES. 98
> >
> > Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
> >
> > (1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or
other
> > agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
> > Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or
thereafter,
> > which would--
> >
> > (A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions
for
> > the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also
mandates
> > new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas
> > emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance
period,
> > or
> >
> > (B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States;
and
>
> That's right; 'George' has resisted serious actions on global warming
> on the basis that strong measures would have wrecked U.S. economy.

Note: George W. Bush was Governor of Texas when this resolution past.

And note it was a sense of the Senate resolution which was 95 - 0.

This is why neither Bill Clinton nor George Bush put the treaty befor the
Senate.