Did Leaving Kyoto Matter?

McMegan says "Despite what Matt says, I fail to see how Bush made any difference, given that the Senate had rejected the treaty 99-0 with one abstainer."

This is silly (about as silly as the view, sometimes expressed in comments, that I should avoid criticizing Megan when she writes things that are wrong on the theory that conservative views would somehow vanish if I ignored them) -- Clinton signed the treaty, knowing he couldn't get it ratified, and Bush un-signed it, knowing that there was no threat of ratification. Neither administration did what they did for no reason. Rather, they did it because of the impact on the political momentum, precisely the factor UN officials have cited to me as the relevant mechanism.

Meanwhile, let me also just say that I find there to be something incredibly wearing about this worldly-wise pose where one combines fatalism with nitpicking attacks on straw environmentalists instead of just forthrightly taking the view that the United States government ought to be indifferent to the problem of climate change. Maybe we'll do the right thing, and maybe we won't -- the future isn't written yet. One factor determining whether or not we do the right thing is whether or not right-of-center elites -- yes, including political bloggers at the Atlantic -- put emphasis on the idea that it's important for us to do the right thing.

Comments

Yeah, that really hits the nail on the head about what bothers me about Megan, on this issue in particular and more generally. The frustrating thing about this particular issue is that her professed views track pretty closely what smart environmentalists are saying. I mean, you can always find stupid ideas to pick on if you go searching hard enough, but generally, if one feels the need to indulge in that sort of thing at all, one does it to people they fundamentally disagree with. Which is, I suppose, why people question Megan's sincerity sometimes. Mind you, I don't, at least on this issue, but one does get the feeling that Megan makes these sorts of attacks as almost a kind of reflex.

Posted by LarryM | September 24, 2007 3:41 PM

Hey everyone check out the lively discussion under Ganji's letter. Don't tell me you give more of a crap about Joe Biden than you do about the future of Iran!

Posted by ssss | September 24, 2007 3:57 PM

Look, the Clinton Administration's signature was meaningless. It never had any intention of even trying to get the document it signed ratified. Gore publicly stated that the administration would not seek ratification without "meaningful participation by key developing nations." And congressional Democrats were also firmly opposed to the treaty as written. So stop pretending that it's Bush who blocked U.S. participation in the treaty.

Posted by Mixner | September 24, 2007 4:12 PM

Hey everyone check out the lively discussion under Ganji's letter.

Actually, don't. It's the kind of predictable thread--with the usual predictable ranting knee-jerkers knee-jerking both rantingly and predictably, often at essay length--that regular readers of this blog have by now come to expect whenever Matt posts on the topics of "race in America," "Israel," or "Iran."

Posted by James Gary | September 24, 2007 4:41 PM

"about as silly as the view, sometimes expressed in comments, that I should avoid criticizing Megan when she writes things that are wrong on the theory that conservative views would somehow vanish if I ignored them"

Or as silly as wearing a Punisher t-shirt to a skeet range..., sorry, couldn't resist,..., musn't, ..., mock,..., Yglesias...

Posted by Rihilism | September 24, 2007 4:46 PM

This is silly

Almost as silly as someone saying that Bush "unsigned" Kyoto, when nothing of the sort ever happened!

Ah, the Reality-Based Community...

Posted by Al | September 24, 2007 5:09 PM

I happen to think that a certain kind of rant is the appropriate response on the issue of Iran - and those of who you are regular readers know what kind of rant - but I'm tired of wasting my breath. It doesn't accomplish anything except to raise my blood pressure.

As for the topic at hand, while my own feelings about Megan's blogging are nowhere near as harsh as some of Matthew's readers, I think that their point isn't that Matthew's readers don't think that he should engage smart conservatives and libertarians, it's that ... some of then feel that Megan isn't worth engaging. I don't agree with this, on the whole, though there are times when perhaps Matthew takes some of her arguments a tad more seriously than they deserve.

Actually, in this case I would have liked Matthew to take some of her arguments MORE seriously, despite what I said above. Mind you, I think that Matthew is right and Megan wrong, but I think a little more engagement with her specific points would have been valuable.

Posted by LarryM | September 24, 2007 5:10 PM

99-0 and you think momentum is the issue?

Posted by Dave | September 24, 2007 5:26 PM

Matthew and Megan, sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-n-G!
If you don't ask her out THIS WEEKEND, we're all going to stand around you in a circle and point and HOOT.

Posted by Bloix | September 24, 2007 6:15 PM

Again, we did not "leave" Kyoto, we never entered the treaty to be able to leave it. The President's signature on a treaty is legally meaningless without Senate ratification; It's no different than if a President "signed" a law he wanted Congress to pass, but which Congress hadn't actually enacted.

Indeed, according to the Wikipedia, (For what it's worth.) the treaty wasn't even signed by Clinton, but instead by vice President Gore, an act utterly devoid of any legal significance at all.

Even from a PR standpoint it was meaningless, because the Senate had rejected the treaty long before said meaningless signature. Only people utterly ignorant about how treaties are ratified, (Or not.) accorded any significance at all to this signature, and I doubt that includes many heads of state.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | September 24, 2007 6:23 PM

Did Leaving Kyoto Matter?
***********************************************
We never left because we were never there.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/11/kyoto/

Gore, who often serves as the administration's point person on environmental issues, said the U.S. intends to press for "meaningful participation by key developing nations." Until that happens, the administration will not seek a ratification vote in the Senate, Gore said.

"As we said from the very beginning, we will not submit this agreement for ratification until key developing nations participate in this effort," Gore declared. "This is a global problem that will require a global solution."

Posted by Campesino | September 24, 2007 6:36 PM

Well, your toned down your McArdle linking for a few days there, but I see we are right back to the Daily McArdle Link again.

Posted by jim | September 24, 2007 6:37 PM

...about as silly as the view, sometimes expressed in comments, that I should avoid criticizing Megan when she writes things that are wrong on the theory that conservative views would somehow vanish if I ignored them...

It's more that you were linking to her repeatedly, and always making the same point: that she is out of her depth and writes about things she doesn't understand. I know she's your friend and all, but Sadly, No! is your go-to resource for Meganisms, anyway.

Posted by Kiril | September 24, 2007 7:08 PM

"the worldly-wise pose where one combines fatalism with nitpicking attacks on straw environmentalists instead of just forthrightly taking the view that the United States government ought to be indifferent to the problem of climate change."

Exactly. This is a fairly common style on what I would term the faux-intellectual Right: the McArdles and David Brookses of the world, though we also get it from some TPM Abroad Very Serious People types when they're being coy.... It's basically an extremely disingenuous rhetorical ploy, and yes, it's infuriating.

Good for you, MY, for batting down this nonsense. It must be exhausting, though.

Posted by Ben Cronin | September 24, 2007 8:36 PM

can we stop with the lies and bullshit about the senate rejecting kyoto? the byrd-hagel resolution expressed the "sense of the senate" prior to the final negotiation of the treaty that non-developed be included and that the senate was opposed to any treaty that would result "in serious harm" to the u.s. economy.

the obvious response is that those who have been responsible for the vast majority of co2 emissions over time should take the first step in combating the problem -- you make the mess, you clean it up. furthermore, developing countries were included in the sense that they could receive green technologies from developed countries and developed countries would receive credit for such tech transfers.

meanwhile, "serious harm"? kyoto certainly would not have done that.

the senate may have still rejected kyoto, but bush set things back for years by not only withdrawing from kyoto, but then offering no alternative. instead, he went with the lie that there was too much scientific uncertainty regarding the human causes of climate change to take any action whatsoever. fucking liar.

Posted by bob | September 24, 2007 9:03 PM

also, if mcmegan is going to lie and misrepresent, she might as well base her lies in facts -- the fact is that it was 95-0. not 99-0.

and would anyone vote against such obviously biased language? of course not. voting against byrd-hagel would be saying that you favor serious harm to the u.s. economy.

passing a sense of the senate resolution prior to kyoto was not the same as rejecting kyoto 95-0. (or 99-0, as mcmegan pretends it was.)

Posted by bob | September 24, 2007 9:06 PM

Bob, I suppose you have some explanation, given that the Senate didn't really reject the treaty, for why Clinton didn't even bother submitting it to the Senate for consideration?

Face it, as far as the US is concerned, the Kyoto treaty was dead as could be by the time Bush took office. Blaming this one on Bush is flat out insane.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | September 24, 2007 9:17 PM

The point, of course, is that the Clinton Administration was committed to using the unratified treaty as a vehicle for further negotiations to address the problems of global warming.

The Bush Adminstration destroyed all possibility of using the treaty as such a vehicle, and offered nothing in its place.

The Bush Adminstration's policy is to do nothing about global warming.

Our grandchildren will curse his name . . .

Posted by rea | September 24, 2007 9:29 PM

Ok, we were there, in a way, for about ten seconds, when Christine Todd Whitman, head of the EPA at the time, said our country was going to back Kyoto. Then they slapped her down and replaced her eventually.

Posted by Phoebe | September 24, 2007 9:48 PM

The point, of course, is that the Clinton Administration was committed to using the unratified treaty as a vehicle for further negotiations to address the problems of global warming.

I can't tell if this is intended to be if it just unintentionally funny. The Clintonites decided that even the "inadequate" Kyoto treaty was too much for the US Senate to ratify, but they intended to negotiate an even more onerous treaty in the future. Good one.

I keep thinking of a car salesman... "I realize that you said you can't afford this Ford Focus, so I'm not going to continue to try to convince you to buy that. Instead, let's talk about you buying this Cadillac Escalade!"

Posted by Al | September 24, 2007 10:06 PM

Why not take the criticism of Megan as the default, and praise her when she writes things that are correct?

Saves on electrons and attention...

Posted by Brad DeLong | September 24, 2007 11:31 PM

Our grandchildren will curse his name . . .

Well, since me and the spouse and our children are hoarse from the practice, and neither the practice nor the itch for it show any signs of letting up and is, in fact, spreading around the world, I'm betting that by the time we have grandchildren that you're going to have to make reservations and stand in line to curse his name. His name. His shoes. His old car, old pens, old bits of lint from his towels. Everything about the guy.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 25, 2007 8:59 AM