"The protocol is flawed for several reasons," and Constance D Holmes goes on to explain her rather lengthy reasons to the House Committee on Science Feb 4th 1998. I will pick out just one or two phrases.
"First, the agreement reached at Kyoto on December 10-11, 1997 is not an effective or equitable climate policy and may never be regardless of U.S. efforts. Etc"
"Secondly, implementing the Kyoto protocol would result in serious harm to the U.S. economy, to U.S. families, workers and businesses. Here it is important to note that the Kyoto Protocol would require the U.S. to cede to a UN bureaucracy the powers we now use to set the pace of our economic growth, our production of goods and services, and the creation of new jobs. This form of unilateral economic disarmament makes no sense."
"Third, as costly as the regulatory regime that would be created by the Kyoto Protocol in its present form might be, it would produce little or no discernible environmental benefit, as the Chairman Emeritus of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, Bert Bolin, pointed out in an article in SCIENCE on January 16 1998. Etc."
· It sets a U.S. emissions target, which cannot be met without causing severe economic and social dislocation.
· It transfers power to UN bureaucrats who could intrude into U.S. legislative and Constitutional processes by controlling U.S. economic growth, limiting the conduct of foreign policy by exempting only those greenhouse emissions that occur from UN sponsored "multilateral operations".
· It prohibits Senate reservations and modification to the Protocol, and potential allows for future tightening of emissions targets without explicit Senate approval.
· Its cost are a "stealth tax" on American consumers and businesses and it increases a UN bureaucracy that likely would be dominated by countries quite willing to use provisions in the Kyoto Protocol to impose economic and social change on U.S. families, workers and businesses--for little, if any, environmental gain.
On July 15th 1999 the Testimony of Jack Kemp before the House of Representatives "to speak on the alleged threat of man-made global warming; that treaty's implications for both the world economy and the American system of government; and proposed legislation concerning so-called "early action credits" to reward hypothetical reductions in fossil fuel emissions. These credits are touted by some as offering a "market approach" enabling us to regulate the future climate of the Earth. As I hope to demonstrate, they are nothing of the kind: instead, they are truly market socialism, an artificial device attempting to mimic market activity that really conceals a concerted campaign by international bureaucrats to seize control of the world's energy supply and indeed of every facet of our economic life."
Very strong words--I continue--
"The Kyoto Protocol, the idea of trading credits to facilitate implementation of that agreement, and the very concept of regulating the word's energy policies through an international treaty together constitute a huge battle over power--not just "power" in the sense of controlling the energy sources that drive the world economy, but political power in the sense of "who decides"; who decides how fast our economy should grow (or if it should grow at all), who decides etc, etc"
"As you know, the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations with, I regret, active participation by the Executive Branch of the U.S. Last fall President Clinton authorised the U.S. to sign the Treaty, but he has refused to submit it to the Senate for ratification. Nevertheless, the administration works tirelessly to implement Kyoto de facto."
"In short, there is no reasonable doubt that the President and his administration are hard at work trying to impose on the American people Kyoto's limits on growth and innovation, and they are doing it (1) without authorisation of a legally binding treaty, and (2) as far below the radar screen as they can possibly go in order to avoid alerting the public to what is going on and what truly is at stake."
Tell me about it? Is this not happening here in Britain? Who mentioned World Government? AND THERE IS MORE.
"Finally, Mr Chairman, all of us need to find better ways to dramatise the way the Clinton administration is abusing the power of treaty-making to bind the nation to agreements that not only are unratified, but that are never even submitted to the Senate for ratification. This is a fundamental issue of constitutional power, not just between the president and congress, but between America as a sovereign nation and those international institutions to which we subscribe, but to which we must never cede authority over our economic life and our political freedoms. As one who respects the U.N., and both an admirer and I hope a friend of Kofi Annan, I nevertheless say that I absolutely do not want the UN to tell me or my family how much we should pay for gasoline, what kind of cars we should buy, or how we should heat our homes."
"Our national security and economic future are being put at risk by agreements never properly vetted in the political process, and imposed on our nation by the sheer will of the Chief Executive. It is hard to imagine a more urgent issue than this." Etc, etc
Reposted from comments on the new Urban Future thread here Originally from the blog Fightin’ Words Above: Obama’s last visit to Copenhagen didn’t work out so well for the USA. The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change. A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention. Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording: At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it. I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement. How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it. [laughter] And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it. So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not. But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it. So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow: Sail on, O Ship of State! Lord Monckton giving a presentation - photo by Derek Warnecke Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from members of the audience. Among those questions were these relevent to the forthcoming Copenhagen treaty: Question: The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that’s his agenda and he’ll do it. I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to www.wattsupwiththat.com, they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that. [Update: this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don't want at WUWT. If you want to see it and discuss it. Do it at the original blog entry Fightin' Words - Anthony] Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant. Edited to add @ 8:31 am: Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose: 38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following: World Government (heading added) To Redistribute Wealth (heading added) With Enforcement Authority (heading added)Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty
in Copenhagen,
Claims British Lord Monckton
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/
16102009 
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window,(b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].
Posts
