Well, of course, providing evidence of the Bush Administration being disconnected from reality is sort of like piling on 20 minutes after someone’s been tackled, but we’ll go ahead anyway. When asked about the implications of the Lieberman-Warner CSA (with all its problems), the lead US representative at Bali, Harlan Watson showed he was on top of things:
“In our process, a vote for movement of a bill out of committee does not ensure its ultimate passage,”
Absolutely true …
“I don’t know the details, but we will not alter our posture here.”
Jaw dropping aghast … doesn’t know the details?
This AP report is entitled US on defensive at climate conference but the actual web address gives an even better title: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071206/ap_on_re_as/bali_us_under_siege , e.g, Bali: US Under Siege.
The Bush administration’s position, that technology, private investment and economic growth — rather than mandatory emissions cuts — will save the planet from global warming, is taking a beating
While I have clearly stated my (very) strong reservations with Lieberman-Warner, this is the key reason for supporting it:
“It does show the seriousness of the U.S. Congress in addressing with these issues, and really sends a positive signal to developing nations in particular that the United States Congress is not going to sit idly by,” said David Waskow, of the Oxfam humanitarian agency. “That is quite distinct from … the Bush administration.”
Sadly, the “positive signal” does not mean US policy for meaningful action.
Watson was adamant the Bush administration would stick to its guns, no matter what Australia or the Senate did.
And, this intransigence in support of a destructive policy is recognized.
“That’s a very encouraging sign from the United States,” UN climate chief Yvo de Boer said of the Senate vote. But “for us, as an intergovernmental process, we’re most interested in the views of the government of the day.”
Hat tip to Green Miles for bringing this to our attention.