« A Breath of Fresh Air / Eine Brise frischen Windes | Main | Remembering America's Contribution (1) »


I allways love to see german /european leftists complain about the US (those evil capitalists, destroyers of the world, SUV-drivers) who decline to sign those Kyoto-BS....

Kyoto: a european obsession.

Christian agenda?
What about..
1. Church taxes in Germany.. most Americans would say huh? the government collects taxes for the church? separation of church and state.
2. Religious instruction in the public schools here in Germany.. another foreign aspect that Americans would say huh? to.
3. The stores being closed on holidays and sundays..
the church plays a role in that too...
(the labor unions more so)
so it all depends on your standpoint...

re: Kyoto.
the Senate rejected Kyoto in its present form in 1997 by an almost unanimous margin.. 97-0 I believe. even Kerry either voted against or abstained.
The Senate must approve all treaties.. part of the US constitution since 1789.. so the treaty was dead for FOUR YEARS before Bush took office.
Clinton did nothing to further it. (he was in office until 2001). All Bush did was ANNOUNCE its death. but yet he gets the blame. I don't understand why.. but yes I really do. Bush is the scapegoat for ALLES

Now what do we really have here again ?
We have one question:
"What is the State Department doing to repair the damage, if one can say so, done by American soldiers in Abu Ghraib torturing Iraqi prisoners?"

Ans since there doesnt seem to be more than this question but someone obviously has to say "something" bad about those nasty germans one must to try and and take his pick from the past of this man.
Actually it is totally unimportant if he hates america or loves it.

The only important thing here (if there is something of importance at all in this post) is the question and the answer to it.

And ?

What about it now ?

re: re: Kyoto.

Is that how you respond to "Biased Reporting from Washington"? By telling LIES? The Clinton Administration signed the Kyoto treaty on 12/11/98. However, it has in fact never been submitted to the Senate for ratification. And yes, the Bush Administration is indeed responsible for that. The only time the Senate was involved in this was with the NON-BINDING Byrd-Hagel resolution. And that was BEFORE the conclusion of the Kyoto agreement.

I agree with Deist. Wagner even weakens his question by saying "if one can say so". I can't find any unpoliteness in his question. Even the Bush administration knows that these events were damaging to US policies. Otherwise they wouldn't put so much effort in investigating these things, right? They even justified the administration's decision not to release more pictures with their damaging nature.

So what is your point? Is that all you have to offer to prove the allegedly "Biased Reporting from Washington"?


"BECAUSE IT WOULD NEVER PASS SENATE". So??? What's your point? Why not facing it? Why not submitting it anyway? If you don't submit the treaty to the Senate then you can't blame it for not passing it (or for "flip-floping"). Let the Senate decide what pass and what not to pass!

And thanks for the "advise" but thanks. I'm closer to US domestic politics than you might think.


the Byrd-Hagel resolution was passed by a different Senate than the one that is in session now and it is NON-BINDING! If all submitted bills were passed what would be the point of having a Senate? It happens all the time that the Senate rejects bills. Even bills that were submitted by the President.

And here is a free advice for you: Stop advising people! Nobody is going to listen to your useless and arrogant comments anyway!

Its irrelevant if he is reporter for a state owned media outlet or not.
At least here in that context.

He asked a question.
I think it is a valid question regardless of what his intentions behind that questions could have been.

I also do not see any unpoliteness here.

The impression i get at the moment is rather that this incident has been exaggerated beyond what is reasonable.

Should every single sentence and question of anybody who ever held or still holds certain optionions be discarded because he said something bad some other day ? Regardless of what he actually says ?

Why ?

The point here is the question that he has asked.
Nothing more and nothing less.

There is no point in adding things without relation on purpose to give us some wider picture on a totally simple question. That is of course unless one has his bias...

jo, if you are indeed close to US domestic politics as you claim to be, then I am sure you are aware of several points. The first of these is the Clinton Administration had ample time and opportunity to submit the Kyoto Treaty to the Senate for ratification. It chose not too. The reason it chose not to was it would have been defeated. Presidents do not send treaties to the Senate if they are not going to be ratified.

The second is something referred to a Presidential protocol that exists within the club of former oval office holders. They do not make public remarks about the actions of either their predecessors when they are in office and they do not comment on the actions of those who occupy the office after them unless it is in some way to support the current President. The one thing they all try to do is to retain both the power and the prestige of the Office of the President. (of course there are exceptions to the rule Carter being the most notable.)

It would have damaged the Office of the President, had President Bush submitted the Kyoto Treaty to the Senate for ratification and it was defeated. It surely would have been defeated as both the Republicans and the Democrats were in opposition. On the Democratic side most notably Kennedy, Byrd, Hollands, Kerry and Liberman were in opposition.

The final point is while you and the environmental NGO's would like to present that significant flexibility mechanisms were established in the treaty after the Byrd-Hagel resolution was passed that is not true. The adjustments were minor in nature at insistence of the EU and did not change the treaty.

"It would have damaged the Office of the President ..."

Well that is certainly not the reason why Bush didn't submit the treaty. Bush said it "would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy" (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html) even though a 2000 Bush campaign pledge stated the U.S. would not withdraw from the treaty. The U.S. make up 6 percent of the world's population yet are responsible for more than a quarter of the world's carbon dioxide!

If the Bush administration really would try to retain the prestige of the Office then why did they tell all these lies of how the former Clinton administration alledgedly destroyed all the equipment and created this big mess when they left the White House?


The destruction was in fact documented by the GSA.

Want to go another round with your campagin of dis-information.

Oh for those of you who might be following this childish exchange by jo, below is a link by MSM of the topic of destruction by the former Clinton staff.


You will note the Bush White House was responding to a question of a GSA report which was published in the WP. What would you have preferred for them to say? The WP was wrong in their report. Then you could say the WH was less than honest.

Of course, none of this was a policy decision by President Clinton. You will note President Bush did not or has not said anything about President Clinton signing the Kyoto accords.

You just want to have it both ways. You have to be European.


not true!

"... the General Services Administration, the government housekeeper responsible for maintaining the walls and floors of federal buildings, found no unusual damage. "The condition of the building walls and flooring was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy," a GSA statement said."


actually I was reading cnn.com rather than telepolis. but what do you care?

There is no evidence whatsoever that compliance with the Kyoto Protocol would seriously harm the U.S. economy. So your comment is once again pointless!

Niko: "Yeah, I was wrong."

Yeah, I know. But I have something else for you:

"In 1998, the White House Council of Economic Advisors concluded that the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol would be "modest" -- no more than a few tenths of 1 percent of gross domestic product in 2010, equivalent to adding no more than a month or two to a ten-year forecast for achieving a vastly increased level of wealth in this country. A subsequent and more detailed study by five Department of Energy national laboratories found that policies to promote increases in energy efficiency would allow the United States to make most of the emission reductions required to comply with the Kyoto Protocol through domestic measures that have the potential to improve economic performance over the long run. The only study that President Bush cited in announcing his reversal on CO2 reductions, a report by the Energy Information Administration, failed to consider the inexpensive greenhouse pollution reductions that can be achieved through energy efficiency. The study also ignored the Kyoto Protocol's flexible market mechanisms, which the United States has spent the last three years negotiating with other signatories."

This has to be CK brother. Nice to meet you.

Joe: This has to be CK brother

I don't think it's CK :-) This guy, jo, is the fanatical sort. CK isn't really a fanatic. CK just has a strong fanatical hold on some of his ideas, but jo doesn't sound like CK. CK must be on vacation :-)


"you're watching way too much TV"

Oh really? I'm just wondering: Why do the lights burn 24-7 on the interstates here in Cincinnati, OH? Why do I have to work in an office without windows even though I'd prefer to see some daylight every once in a while? Why is this place airconditioned so that I'm freezing right now? Why can't I get food on reusable plates in the cafeteria? Why is there no functioning public transport system instead of the 4 interstates that are a nightmare at rush hour? Why is it impossible to implement a reasonable recycling system in this town? Just to name a few examples of my personal life. I can't see how changing any of these things would harm the economy.

It would just be inconvenient (even though I don't see the convenience of being trapped on I-75 twice a day). And to tell you the truth: I'm starting to adjust. Everything is so convenient here. Why do we stupid Europeans care so much about the environment? Come to America and see for yourself how easy life can be and how endless the ressources are. I guarantee you, you will enjoy the convenience of drive-throughs very soon. Don't listen to those stupid European environmentalists. They are just jealous and they want to take away your good but shallow life!

Come to America and see for yourself how much of our world's ressources a single person can waste!

Note from David: Same IP address as "Jo".


I'm sorry to disappoint you but I'm certainly not CK.


I don't consider myself fanatical. Maybe just a little biased when it comes to those Bush-loving-no-matter-what people.

@David: "Note from David: Same IP address as "Jo"."

Sorry, forgot to put my name.

Niko: "The Kyoto protocol is not about turning off the street lights, dude"

Oh yes, dude, it is. It's about reducing CO2 production and this can be achieved by saving energy, just to name one example.

"... but because they still care about their economy"

No, you got wrong. A thriving economy and a healthy environment are not two competing goals! Just compare gas prices. 1.20EUR per liter vs. 1.20USD per gallon. Still, I actually see a lot more poverty here in the US than I see in Germany! The quality of life is not four times better here just because energy is four times cheaper. People don't make four times as much money for the same work here. And when I go shopping I actually pay more than I do in Germany. Do the high gas prices and high environmental standards harm Germany's economy? I don't think so.


Then I might suggest you write you Senator and ask him to bring the treaty up for debate.


Here is a interesting link. This gives you an opportunity to see how some decisions are made. Given that no nation has unlimited funds, one has to pick the spots where they spend what they do have.



I got a good article for you. Pop me an email...

you said

"Is that how you respond to "Biased Reporting from Washington"? By telling LIES? The Clinton Administration signed the Kyoto treaty on 12/11/98. However, it has in fact never been submitted to the Senate for ratification. And yes, the Bush Administration is indeed responsible for that. The only time the Senate was involved in this was with the NON-BINDING Byrd-Hagel resolution. And that was BEFORE the conclusion of the Kyoto agreement. "

OK.. Clinton signed it in 98 and was in office two more years after that and never submitted it to the Senate.. and that is BUSHES fault? of course, the Europeans love Clinton - all show and no substance. I have to admit I didn't know it was non-binding.. but do you REALLY think it would have had a chance ? cmon almost unanimous..
btw how many European countries had ratified the treaty at the time of Bushes announcement? I may be incorrect, but only one - Romania..
there is a German saying 'Wasser predigen, Wein trinken'. and yes Germany has in the meantime ratified it.. but the debate here also talked about economic impact.. a concern here too. unfortunately Trittin - the eco terrorist - has too much power...

Does the USA waste energy? YES.. but don't be so damned self righteous. I live in Europe. you also cook with water.. the point was brought up..
the US is responsible for a large part of the world economic output as well.


You should send this link to the Bush administration! Did they take $50 billion to fight malaria and HIV? No! Did they use that money to implement Kyoto? No! Instead they started a war against another country that was/is much, much more expensive. I wonder what the benefit (if any) will be from that investment! However, I'm sure the $1:$40 from fighting malaria is hard to top!


“There is no evidence whatsoever that compliance with the Kyoto Protocol would seriously harm the U.S. economy. So your comment is once again pointless.”

If “there is no evidence whatsoever that compliance with the Kyoto Protocol would seriously harm the U.S. economy,” why, may I ask, are the Europeans so unwilling to make the same sacrifices they demand of us? Is there something wrong about asking that the impact of Kyoto be fairly distributed among the developed countries? In fact, Kyoto would have been grotesquely unfair, because the Europeans had already virtually “achieved” their Kyoto goals. This had nothing to do with any virtuous and bold steps they took to reduce greenhouse emissions during the 1990’s but, for the most part, to three “windfalls” for which they deserve no credit whatsoever. In the first place, the U.S. economy and population grew much faster than those of Europe during the 90’s. Secondly, thanks to the presence of large new natural gas resources in the North Sea and elsewhere, the Europeans were able to rely much more heavily on gas-fired power plants, which only produce about half the CO2 emissions of coal-fired plants. The U.S. had no windfall sources of cheap natural gas to replace coal. Finally, the Europeans, and especially Germany, were able to shut down heavily polluting Communist era factories. The rationale for doing this had nothing to do with reducing greenhouse emissions. The factories were simply losing vast amounts of money. If idealism and commitment to the environment had anything to do with it, then the rest of Europe should be ashamed. Russia achieved a whopping 30% reduction in its greenhouse emissions using a similar method, and that at a time of severe economic dislocation! Ukraine’s reduction was closer to 40%, at a time when they were an economic basket case even compared to Russia. What heroism!! Have the Europeans reacted rationally to all this, adjusting Kyoto emissions targets to bring at least a semblance of parity to the level of economic sacrifice demanded of all parties to the agreement? Hardly! I suspect it’s particularly unlikely in Germany, where, to the best of my knowledge, the mass media hasn’t even mentioned salient facts like this, though they are absolutely essential to any rationale debate on the matter.

It’s quite true that Clinton was committed to achieving a workable Kyoto agreement. The fact that he didn’t has a lot more to do with European duplicity than U.S. obstructionism. When Clinton negotiators tried to save Kyoto and assure it some chance of ratification in the U.S. by asking for sensible provisions for carbon trading, European negotiators stonewalled and refused to budge. In the Bonn negotiations towards the end of the Clinton Administration, as at all previous Kyoto talks, European negotiators, including those of France, Germany, and the Netherlands, have been ministers of the environment, people like Germany's Trittin, who love to play to the crowds, but have little or no role in national decision making. The U.S., on the contrary, has always had high level representation. At Bonn for example, it was Paula Dobriansky, whose connections ran directly to the White House. In the early days of the Bush Administration when his attitude towards Kyoto had not yet hardened, clowns like Trittin insulted and villified him, setting up a President just beginning his administration for all the usual cheap shots of his domestic opponents about his stupidity, lack of leadership, inability to conduct foreign affairs, etc. etc. etc. One wonders what more they could have done to insure the U.S. would never ratify the agreement. And that's precisely what they wanted. Now they can cry big crocodile tears and tell us that, despite their deep commitment to saving the world from global warming, all their heroic efforts have been stymied by the evil U.S. When you add to this the fact that no major European country has implemented any significant active measures whatsoever to slow greenhouse emissions, it's obvious to everyone but a few duped Europeans what's going on.

If serious steps to reduce CO2 emissions won’t harm economies, and, in particular, if they won’t cost jobs, you need to take your message to Chancellor Schröder, not George Bush. He was so terrified that the serious steps he was demanding of the U.S. to reduce emissions would cost jobs if applied in Germany that he cynically demanded, in effect, that only the U.S. sacrifice to achieve the Kyoto targets, virtually assuring that the U.S. Senate would never ratify the agreement.

If you really think Germany or any other European country will take bold measures to reduce greenhouse gases thanks to Kyoto, get ready for some major disappointments in the next ten years. Reductions in European greenhouse emissions beyond what you'd expect from lame economies and increased use of cheap natural gas will be paltry indeed, barring some deus ex machina in the form of a brilliant discovery that allows them to do it without impacting domestic industries. Meanwhile, the two-face, self-righteous posturing of the pious European “environmentalists” have so galvanized the right in this country against any meaningful steps to limit greenhouse emissions

We, like the Europeans, are polluters, but not "very disproportionately." People like you always compare pollution in the U.S. with pollution in Europe as if we were just another small country somewhere north of the Alps. You are comparing apples and oranges. In large parts of our country the population density isn't anywhere near European levels. Mass transit is virtually noexistent, and people must often travel long distances to work in automobiles. Food, fuel, etc., must be carried over much larger distances than in Europe. The vibrant economies of the entire southern tier of our country would not exist without air conditioning. The Europeans seldom need it, and sit in their northern climes, piously preaching to us about this foolish luxury. Greater per capita use of energy in the U.S. is reasonable and necessary. These facts are invariably ignored by European America-bashers. Instead, they throw out “facts,” like, “The U.S. makes up 6 percent of the world's population yet are responsible for more than a quarter of the world's carbon dioxide!” completely ignoring the absolutely essential differences I’ve mentioned above, as if they didn’t exist or didn’t matter. This they refer to as “objective criticism.” What a joke! And we are supposed to be the “simplistic” ones!


I agree with most what you say. We Europeans tend to be very hypocritical when it comes to Western politics. Even though we're all part of the "Western world" we blame everything that we as "Westerners" do wrong on the U.S. I mean, let's face it. It's very convenient to do so. It doesn't require much brain and it gives peace to mind.

However, that doesn't make things any better. The things that we are so critical about are still wrong. I do think that a lot of things have to change in Europe as well as in the U.S. The fact that Kyoto might be unfair doesn't give anybody the right to continue as if there was no problem.

But I don't think that I compare apples and oranges. I live in Cincinnati and it very well is comparable to a European city. Weatherwise (I hate the AC in my office, I never use it at home, you don't really need it) as well as traffic-wise (traffic is a nightmare here, a public transportation system like in Berlin could work, it does work in Atlanta for instance). And I don't see why it would be impossible to recycle either. I do understand that a thriving economy needs energy but I also see a lot more unnecessary waste of ressources in the States than I see in Europe. And that's because life is supposed to be convenient here at any cost, and many people simply don't care as much.


"The US are hell on earth"

I never said that. I did notice however that there are no (half-)naked people on TV. Is that hell? You decide.

Reference funding for HIV/AIDS


Of course, this does not satisify anyone. Everyone wants everything now. If you have a pet rock then your rock is the most important one that exists.

For those who might think this should be a priority then the question becomes what do you not fund. education, research, homeland security, defense, transportation,..

Or do you think maybe taxes should be increased. That's a plan. Does anyone know of any government program that is actually efficient?

Of course, if this is your pet rock, then there are lots of ways you as an individual can chose to fund research, or provide care for those with AIDS.


"Does anyone know of any government program that is actually efficient?"

Oh, now you disagree with that article about that conference in Copenhagen? And now you agree with me that that a certain big government program of trying to get rid of all those WMDs in Iraq is inefficient? Well, that's good then.

I do not agree or disagree with any statement other than the one I made. Which is does anyone know of any government program which is efficient.

I surely do not.


Some people have no knowledge of history. If they did they would realize that it was 7 years after VE before the Germans had a national government.

Of course, there are those who think that after a little more than a year Iraq should look like Switzerland. These are the same people who wanted a pony for Christmas and never got one.

Today I heard that only 8 % of the people in Kenia have electricity and I thought of the reports about Iraq. How many have electricity in the Arab countries? I don't know but that is what we should compare. We should not compare Iraq with Germany.

Speaking of the environment, I see that even SPIEGEL is starting to suspect that the brain-dead "environmentalists" who promote the rejection of nuclear power might be slightly off base. Now that the vast majority of the worst polluters in the world are coal plants that might have been safely off line but for the fanatical resistance of the green "saviors of the world," I suspect the editors of SPIEGEL aren't the only ones having second thoughts. Europe can thank its "greens" for tens of thousands of deaths every year from coal plant chemical, particulate, and radioactive pollution. The Gutmenschen can chalk up another triumph of virtuous posing over sanity.


What is the brand of the mobile u are using?
What company invents Airbag, ABS, ESR usw. usw.?
Do you know the name of the leading Company for commercial aircrafts?

Think about cars, cameras, video systems, enviroment technologies...and so on...

US...leading all and everywhere? be real..


Did my mail come close to answering your question?


...right, it seems to me, that u are a man with very little requirements...south china might be best suited for u..

I can easily tell you why the Europeans were so eager to sign on to Kyoto... because they never had any intention of actually abiding by it. They wrote the treaty's terms to cover themselves at the time it was written, with room for growth, so it would seemingly cover them for the foreseeable future without their actually having to do anything.

However, Germany for one is obviously getting concerned, and they are now looking for ways to weasel out. One thing you are going to see is a press for more less-developed Eastern European countries to be added to the EU, and then another press for the EU to be able to average its figures out so that Khazastans of the world will, in effect, give Germany a free carbon-trading system (something denied to the U.S. in the treaty). If it isn't this, it will be something else. Some production will be declared essential, some kind of national emergency declared... one way or the other, no European government will actually ever abide by the terms of the treaty if it requires them to actually do something.

What evidence do I have for making such outlandish statements? Well, look at how France and Germany have recently abrogated their responsibilities under the European Stability Pact, with hardly a peep being said about it in the international elitist circles.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

June 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30