You're absolutely right: that my use of the word "ratify" was incorrect. The senate does indeed ratify treaties. And the senate did reject Kyoto (which may have needed some work), as you have said.

But one debating tactic I've noticed in people with a weak argument: they go quickly to detail, identify flaws in phrasing, redefine words, argue over procedural details. Sometimes this is referred to as a "strawman argument", where you take your opponent's argument in its weakest form, and knock it down. I'd like to invite you to take the argument in its strongest form, and actually say something substantive.

So instead of "refused to ratify the Kyoto treaty," let's instead say "actively undermined efforts to take meaningful action against global warming." That would be taking the argument in a stronger form, and would give you an opportunity to explain how the Bush administration does not deserve a reputation for undermining efforts to combat global warming.

So... would you claim that George Bush has nothing to do with the America's rejection of the Kyoto treaty, or America's remarkable inaction on global warming in general? And would you disagree that his administration has repeatedly tried to undermine California's efforts to do something about it?

Before we start arguing about votes and procedures, I'd like to hear your big picture view on this issue.

Bush treats Kyoto as Clinton did. If Clinton made you feel better about that, well, they don't call him Slick Willy for nothing.

I'd argue that Bush is actually irrelevant to the US and the climate arguments. Since their rejection predates him, it's hard to argue that he's a cause. And, since no one else bothered, it's hard to argue that the US is especially wrong on this point. (Then again, since the best-case benefits of Kyoto are within the margin of error...)

And no, what I did is not a strawman. I took what you wrote at face value.

The strawman is Clinton. There's no reference whatsoever to Clinton in my original post. You claim that I'm elevating Clinton and the Senate to some high position, and then knock it down, when my post is about California's legislation.

My claim is that that California has made efforts that the United States have not made, and I do claim that the Bush administration has been actively undermining these efforts - both nationally and in California.

(edit - oh wait, I get it - I should have said "when the US failed to ratify Kyoto, rather than "when the Bush administration failed to ratify kyoto". I think Bush had a lot to do with it, but he wasn't the only one. If that's your position, fair enough).

The claim was that Euros were angry at Bush because of Kyoto. Since they weren't angry at Clinton and Clinton did the same things wrt Kyoto, the "because" is either wrong or shows that the Euros are ignorant.

And then there's the small matter that the Euros have done much the same wrt Kyoto and the fact that Kyoto doesn't do anything towards the stated goals and ....

I agree, the Europeans to some extent are piling on America, and Americans are piling on Bush, as a convenient way of blaming someone else without doing anything themselves.

That said, the Europeans were irritated with Clinton/Gore about this, and I thought it was somewhat unfair back then as well. When the Kyoto treaty failed the first time, it almost seemed that the Europeans had deliberately constructed a flawed treaty so they could blame us for failing to ratify it.

All the same, I think that Gore would have worked to overcome the negatives of this treaty and get a good agreement through. Whereas I think Bush used it to snuff out any action on Global warming.

California's actions can actually be used to refute some of this international criticism: California was willing to go against its own national government to get global warming legislation through - surely Australia, France, and Germancy can find a way to act without US leadership (or in spite of US opposition).

But my very first post was really about branding - that California may have a better international brand than the US does, partly because of this type of legislation. I really didn't want to spin off a long debate about global warming.

> Australia, France, and Germancy can find a way to act without US leadership (or in spite of US opposition)

Opposition? How is the US forcing anyone to burn hydrocarbons? (France is going nuke in a big way so Germany may end up dependent.)

Euros are constantly saying how they're the economic equal of the US. If that's true, "US leadership" isn't all that relevant. Moreover, if the claims about a carbon free economy are true, doing so would be incredibly lucrative.

When someone insists that something is incredibly profitable but they're not trying to get as much of that profit as possible, their actions refute their words.

California and the US are both brands whose impression, like many brands, often has nothing to do with reality. Suggesting otherwise, especially with bogus arguments, is foolish.

We've hijacked this thread enough by now. Time for us to make our closing arguments and move on. This will be my last post, though I'll read whatever you post in response.

Your last post seemed scattershot to me, but I do want to respond to what I think was a very peculiar argument in your first sentence.

The US isn't forcing anyone to burn hydrocarbons, of course. But a treaty is still important, because many smaller nations will conclude that if the huge emitters aren't going to change, there's no real point in sacrificing themselves (to some extent, this was Australia's rational for rejecting Kyoto).

There's an article in this week's economist about applying prisoner's dilemna to global warming action - where it pays to defect (let other people do the heavy lifting on reducing emissions). If the rest of the world gets it together on global warming, then you'll get a free ride. If the rest of the world doesn't - well then we're all going to hell in a bucket anyway, so why bother with sacrifices? But if everyone acts this way, we'll all be much worse off than if we had cooperated.

The economist article also points out that while defections pay off in single-run games, they don't necessarily pay in repeat games, where subsequent punishment for previous defections may cost more than the benefit of the original defection. In this context, the community of nations who do cooperate may be able to punish defectors severely enough that they prefer to come on board.

I suspect that California is trying to signal to the world that it is cooperating, not defecting, on global warming - by making a very big and public break with national policy. This, along with other policies, is part of the california "brand." While California needs to do more (and an editorial in the SF Chronicle comparing California's policy to New Zealand's shows that we are in no position to get smug), this is no bogus fabrication.

My first sentence is not odd at all if you take the low-carbon folks seriously.

> But a treaty is still important, because many smaller nations will conclude that if the huge emitters aren't going to change, there's no real point in sacrificing themselves (to some extent, this was Australia's rational for rejecting Kyoto).

What sacrifice? The low-carbon folks claim that it will be cheaper. If they're correct, how will hydrocarbons be an issue?

> If the rest of the world gets it together on global warming, then you'll get a free ride.

That's assuming that the IP rights are worthless. I'm prettty sure that they'll be worth quite a lot, arguably far more than the development costs, and a lot of that money will come from latecomers, or if you prefer, "evil deniers". The relevant metaphor is "land grab", not "free rider".

Of course, the low-carbon folks could be wrong, but if they're correct, they make huge amounts of money and do good. Why are they trying to avoid the former?

When people make claims and leave out few "minor" details or is missing some facts for the sake of hyperbole, it becomes less important to agree or disagree with them, rather you point out what's wrong. How can you argue against someone that doesn't present facts? That's not a strawman attack, that's just someone pointing out your mistakes.

As for your question: is Bush undermining the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol? I'll point this out: The US has neither ratified to nor withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol. Maybe the question you should be asking is: why isn't the US ratifying to the Kyoto Protocol.