Why USA does not intend to ratify the Kyoto protocol?

Answer 1

hey, it's not the WHOLE USA. It's just the few guys in the US Government, whoever that may be at the time.

Answer 2

Well, actually from what I've read, the Clinton administration did position themselves to go along with the Kyoto Protocol, or at least to begin going through the motions to get the senate to ratify such an agreement. The Bush administration withdrew any offers of complying with the agreement however. I think that anyone who has bought a car somewhat recently is well aware that Japanese technology is far cleanlier than our smog-spewing oversized engines on wheels that we have in the US. It would be an economic burden for large corporations to refine their facilities to comply with the Kyoto Protocol. The Bush administration feels that this would be bad for American business domestically and harm the GDP. Bush doesn't seem to want to hurt his oil buddies in that way, plus he may feel in not undertaking such a national endeavor, the white house will have all that much more money to use when continuing taking control of less powerful nations.

Answer 3

Simple. Energy interests have a stronger say in our current administration's policy than anyone else. Ratifying Kyoto would cost the energy interests money (they'd have to clean up their pollution). Therefore they oppose Kyoto. Therefore our administration opposes Kyoto.

It sounds like I'm oversimplifying but that's the truth.

It wouldn't cost Americans jobs. That's just propaganda to scare Americans into opposing Kyoto. You really think they're gonna shut down all the refineries because they have to install scrubbers on their smoke stacks? No. They just don't want to foot the bill, and they have enough pull in this administration to get their way.

Say what you want about Al Gore, but if he'd been president (1) we wouldn't be in Iraq, and (2) we'd be doing something about global warming.

Answer 4

Our politicians are stubborn when it comes to environmental protection.

There are some politicians who look at environmental protection or the Kyoto Protocol as a "hippie" or "liberal" complaint or another way to distract the president from other issues. By not signing the Kyoto Protocol it makes the U.S. look as though it does not care what happens to the enviroment as long as it doesn't harm or concern them. This is not true. It is not a matter of being hippie or liberal to care about the enviroment. It is a universal issue that shouldn't be ignored or shot down by politicians because of their views and who they associate as environmentalists or non environmentalists.

As a matter of fact, the issues of enviroment protection has been ongoing in the States for the past forty years. Its just politicians and American leaders who are stubborn, I'm all for the U.S. signing Kyoto Protocol!!!

Answer 5

The myth that compliance with any pollution reduction treaty is bad for our economy is complete horsepoop. Yes, it would cost the oil companies money, but that money doesn't go into some black hole. That money is spent on jobs and material gotten locally to reduce pollution. Those "millions of dollars" in lost profit goes right back in to our economy to the employees, engineers, inspectors, and contractors that bring big oil into compliance with the "clean air" policies. Lack of compliance would mean huge fines the government collects as revenue.

However, what this means is that instead of record high profits that go straight into the pockets of oil shills (so they can fund anti-green propoganda), they would lose a small fraction of the billions of raw profit they have recieved lately.

The Bush and Cheney families, along with Condi Rice and quite a few others in top positions, are all big oil owners and employees, so even if this program is good for almost everyone, it's not good for them.

Answer 6

It was a treaty to cut our own throats. Even Japan, who came up with the treaty, noticed it was a bad deal. Basically the threaty ended up being that we would cut our production then pay other countries to boost theirs, it was a lose for us. Besides, we have taken huge leaps in cleaning up our act, how many of the other countries for that treaty can say the same.

Answer 7

Because there are a lot of people who don't believe it would effectively help solve the problem.

Answer 8

What good is a treaty if you destroy the economy in the process.

Answer 9

If it applied all the same standered to all countries it would be good. It does not so it is not.