The Capitol Journal reports that Representative Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin has thrown her support behind the Kyoto Protocol, saying that her European tour on climate change with Speaker Pelosi has opened her eyes:
U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., said she thinks global warming is real and President George Bush needs to do more to acknowledge the problem.
Herseth Sandlin recently completed a tour of four nations with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and said the evidence is easy to see.
"From the scientific evidence that's been presented in Washington, from the observations and experiences of the native people, as well as witnessing first hand the melting and what's happened, it confirms even more in my mind that global warming is happening," she said.
Herseth Sandlin said some fishermen were saying they were catching foreign species of fish because of the warmer water temperatures. Also, she said they told her that certain areas of snow and ice are melting, which is affecting their dog-sledding industry.
"When we're out in the harbor and we're seeing the icebergs melting and we're seeing the glaciers and where you can see on a daily basis the breaking off from the glacier, when you can see in an aerial view this sort of river coming out it's dramatic," she said.
The international trip was over the Memorial Day weekend and included members of both parties. Herseth Sandlin said the Republican president made an important step when he announced a proposal to reduce the U.S.'s greenhouse gasses, but there is still more to be done.
"We've got to fill in the detail and keep sort of the pressure on to move forward with the immediacy that I think this deserves," she said.
Herseth Sandlin originally was against the Kyoto Treaty - which assigns emissions limits to reduce greenhouse gasses - because China and India were not a part of the framework. However, now she recognizes the need for the U.S. to join.
"I do think that so long as the United States doesn't participate in the multilateral negotiations, that it makes it too easy for China and India to go ahead and say 'Why should we participate when the United States isn't participating,' she said.
The congresswoman's trip has been the target of attack ads from a group called Common Sense for the 21st Century. The ads accuse her of not caring about her home state because she went on the trip soon after the Aberdeen flooding occurred.
"I think the criticism is unfortunate and really ill-informed," she said. "My family and friends in Brown County and that area know that I've been responsive, as has the entire delegation working with the governor, so out-of-state partisan attacks don't worry me much."
However, one of the unintended consequences of signing Kyoto, according to one study, is that it ends up cutting farm incomes by fifty percent:
Kyoto Treaty could cut US farm income by 50 percent
(19 February 1999)
US farmers and ranchers could see their income drop to 50 percent less than 1998 levels if global warming guidelines set out in the Kyoto Treaty and agreed to by the US government are fully implemented, a study released on February 16 1999 claims.
"The impact of the treaty would be a financial last straw for many family farmers," said American Farm Bureau Federation President Dean Kleckner. "The Clinton administration has committed to a flawed treaty without releasing its own analysis of the impact the protocol would have on US agriculture. Meanwhile, agriculture has completed three studies -- all of which show devastating financial consequences for farmers and ranchers."
The study by the agricultural consulting firm Sparks Companies, Inc., states that agricultural production costs could increase by $16.2 billion or 8.8 percent. Because farmers and ranchers do not set the prices for their commodities, recapture of these higher costs would be difficult. Increased costs for processing, storing transporting and handling commodities and food would be forwarded to the consumer and would have the greatest negative impact on low-income families, who already spend a high percentage of their income on food."The administration is touting the treaty as a potential source of income for farmers because agricultural crops absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere," said Kleckner. "Yet, that is nowhere to be found in the treaty, and there is little promise that it will be added."
Last year, a group of agricultural interests, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Corn Growers Association, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Grange and United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, asked Sparks to analyse Clinton administration proposals regarding the Global Climate Change Treaty. The study is based on the final Kyoto Treaty that the US administration signed in November 1998. The study claims the treaty would also force US farmers to compete with more than 100 countries, such as China and Brazil, which do not have to comply with the treaty and its emission constraints.
"This treaty only drives production agriculture to the countries that have environmental problems but don't have to participate in the United Nations' protocol on global climate change," said Kleckner.
Has our Representative considered the Kyoto Protocol carefully?
Recent Comments