Clinton evades
 
 
 
 

No, they weren't scientists in Kyoto
 
 
 

Consequences of Kyoto accords
 
 
 

Teflon is great stuff.  No wonder they make Presidents out of it.
 
 
 
 

The House responds
 
 
 
 

As the U.S. Constitution is interpreted by fabled Constitution Expert Bill Clinton, treaties need only the muscle of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Fortunately, the present Congress has the backbone to stop Clinton, even if their reasoning is somewhat weak. 

When Clinton sent negotiators (who were not scientists) to Kyoto last December to work out a treaty to limit CO2 production, he had already chosen the most extreme of all options presented to him by his panel of experts. He then sent environmental extremist Al Gore to urge the U.S. negotiators to "be flexible." The negotiators signed a treaty designed to limit CO2 production in the U.S. to 7% below the 1990 level by 2008, in spite of an increasing population and a slow tendency for increasing energy consumption per capita. 

Fortunately, the Senate has refused to ratify the Kyoto treaty, one that would subject U.S. energy production to the whims of third-world dictators (TEA, January, 1998). The reason for the refusal has more to do with economics than with the inept science behind the screams of global warmers, but it is a refusal nonetheless. 

Clinton, however, has a means to avoid the ratification process altogether. All he has to do is manipulate the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the provisions of the treaty on the grounds that they are protecting The Environment. EPA Head Carol M. Browner, who knows even less about the environment than Al Gore, is willing and gullible. These traits are a White house specialty. 

The House of Representatives has smelled the rat and taken action to stop it in its tracks. They are working on a bill to prohibit the EPA from enacting the Kyoto accords. This bill seems to have escaped the attention of most news agencies, but National Public Radio (7/24/98) has taken an interest --- mainly because of heated debate about a provision that would prohibit the EPA from propagandizing about the Kyoto accords. On a close vote, the House removed language from the bill that would have restricted the EPA's pronouncements; however, the bill still prohibits the EPA from enacting the Kyoto restrictions on CO2 production.