New Legislation Is a Disguise for Kyoto Protocol

When E.F. Hutton talks, people listen.

That’s the tag from a highly successful advertising campaign that ran 20 years ago for the brokerage firm, you guessed it, E.F. Hutton.

Today, the same might be said in the political world of Sen. Robert Byrd, a hard core, old-timey Democrat whose rhetoric regularly reflects disdain for traditional American values and principles — but who nonetheless does not shy from pulling out Old Glory to fly legislation he proudly references as “made-in-America.”

Okay, Sen. Hutton, we’re listening. At the very least, clarification of what “made-in-America” means to a leftist Democrat should prove enlightening. And enlightening it is; true to form, “made-in-America” is Democrat code for “made-for-the-U.N.”

Introduced April 11 by Byrd was S. 745, a “forward thinking, made-in-America action plan” also known as the International Clean Energy Deployment and Global Energy Markets Investment Act of 2005. That Sen. John Kerry is one of five co-sponsors is illuminating in itself. More insightful, however, is the text of this measure and its push, much to the pleasure of the international community, no doubt, for climate change regulation and cooperation with foreign nations on climate change issues.

It’s not quite Kyoto, but it sure does come close.

What the bill does is establish a task force on International Clean Energy Cooperation comprised of representatives from a slew of national and global entities, from the U.S. Department of Commerce to the Export-Import Bank to the U.S. Agency for International Development, with the aim of instilling clean energy policies in developing countries. Such clean energy strategies include reductions, surprise of all surprises, in greenhouse gas emissions.

Once implemented overseas, the greenhouse gas reductions efforts turn internal, with this task force reporting bi-annually to the president on “what policies, in the United States and in developing countries, would help ??¢â???¬ ¦ improve clean energy technology exports of the United States,” the measure reads.

And where does all this greenhouse gas emission reduction effort lead? According to the bill, it will lead to “bilateral (and) multilateral ??¢â???¬ ¦ commitments of the United States.” In other words, it will lead to America’s implementation of Kyoto Protocol standards against production, or to America’s ratification of the very anti-American, anti-production Kyoto Protocol itself.

Sen. Byrd says as much himself.

“My legislation can serve as a meaningful first step to seriously engage developing countries in tackling the critical link between our mutual energy and climate change challenges. Additionally, such engagement can be a new cornerstone for the U.S. to demonstrate that we are committed to working with other nations on a broad range of international issues,” Byrd stated, during introduction of the measure.

A few minutes later, his true intent becomes even clearer.

“My legislation can serve as a commonsense foot-in-the-door to help jump start the efforts to seek fair and effective globally binding agreements in the future,” Byrd said.

Globally binding agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions ??¢â???¬ ¦ hmm, that wouldn’t be American ratification of the Kyoto Protocol that Byrd seeks, would it? Given his own statements, as well as the lust of at least one of his co-sponsors for international environmental regulation — Kerry, during his presidential campaign, practically foamed at the mouth when speaking of the United Nations and its push for drastic carbon dioxide reductions — it seems this bill is indeed a thinly disguised plot for yet another American concession to the global body.

Worse than this insight, however, is that Byrd is not alone in his efforts.

Wanna-be Republican Sen. John McCain continues his record of trouncing American principle and law, shifting efforts from campaign finance to climate change via introduction — yet again, in February — of the Climate Stewardship Act. Last year, S. 139, this year S. 342, what hasn’t changed is the bill’s scope, or the scope of the House version from Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, formerly H.R. 4067, presently H.R. 759.

“A bill to provide for a program of scientific research on abrupt climate change, to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by establishing a market-driven system of greenhouse gas tradeable allowances, to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the United States ??¢â???¬ ¦” reads McCain’s hopeful masterpiece, an eerie echo of our nation’s own former Environmental Protection Agency administrator’s goals for greenhouse gas reductions.

That would be Christine Todd Whitman — where is she now?

Let’s hope all this legislation, from Byrd’s to McCain’s to the as-yet unclaimed and un-introduced, follows suit.