What is your understanding of why we are not participating in the Kyoto treaty?

Question

I have my basic understanding. How you feel about it is ok, that is how you feel. There has been a lot of information and possibly disinformation from various sources depending on their stance and their understanding of the situation.

My question is from everything you have read and heard, what do you understand to be the reason we are not a part of the Kyoto treaty?

Answer 1

Fundamentally, it boils down to we know before we even go into it that we can't (or rather won't) meet the demands for reduced emissions and energy consumption. To do so would cause a slow in our economy. No politician will support that, it is political suicide in America today. So the way to avoid the political backlash and the attention that would be focused on our failure to meet guidelines is to just not participate in the first place. Nobody notices that.

Answer 2

First of all, Bush denies the existence of global warming, so protecting the environment is probably not on his agenda at all. It's also expensive for industries to use energy-efficient/ non-polluting fuels, dispose waste responsibly.

The target is also set too high, and financially the cost would be far more than the benefits. Canada, instead of reducing emissions by 6%, has in fact upped it by around 10% and are now pulling out. I'll not be surprised if other countries start doing the same.

Answer 3

Primarily because the US would be committing to reducing emissions by a specified amount or paying a penalty, while China (and other Non-Annex 1 countries) have no limits placed on them at all. The US could be forced to pay penalties even if the US reduced and China increased CO2 emissions, if the US reductions did not meet the target. And the US already has a giant and growing trade imbalance with China.

Answer 4

If you want to really know, ready the treaty language since "the devil is in the details". The treaty does not benefit America (as an international agreement) and if you want to help the environment we already have a system of laws, regulation, and enforcement to set our own goals for clean air, water, and land.

Answer 5

My understanding of the Kyoto Accord is to have the world participate in cutting greenhouse gases and simply improve the air, water and land quality for future generations. Have you viewed the movie titled Inconvenient Truth I believe this would help you to understand the facts around the reasons the USA needs to get on board and participate and reveals a truth around why USA is not involved 100% presently. I hope this helped you.

Answer 6

Hello dear!
Mainly, as THE superpower, we do not want to partake in treaties that are democratic and we should think as members, rather than being the emperors!
I will not go further to more details and reasons! The above is the main and heavy issue!

Answer 7

Kyoto is a bunch of garbage. it is unfortunate that so many jobs are dependent on global warming. It is even more unfortunate that politicians only listen to those who jobs are dependent on global warming. Listen to those who have no financial gain from spreading lies. It is even more disturbing that so many people are lead down the garden path by such lies.
I feel sorry for those uninformed that be leave these lies.
Jim

Answer 8

Why is US not in Kyoto?

Because 99 out of 100 Senators passed a resolution in 1998 against it, and Clinton decided that was that. Clinton never put the treaty up for Senate vote, probably because he knew it wouldnt pass and didnt care to try. Kyoto was DOA back in Clinton's day, but the eco-extremists try to make it sound like Bush did Kyoto in. Wrong. Kyoto was stillborn back in 1998.

Kyoto did deserve to be put in the garbage can. Bad Deal.
Kyoto was an anti-US, biased formulation from the get-go, an attempt by globalists and anti-American types to get at the US,
harm our economy while doing little to stop global CO2 generation. and paint us as the number #1 energy hog.

Sanity check:
1. yes, we use 1/4 of the world's oil - WE ALSO PRODUCE 1/3 of the WORLD'S GDP. Imagine that. Thanks to our free market economy, advanced technology, etc. we are fully one third of the entire global economy.
2. Our energy efficiency is nearly double what it was in the 1960s. This happened as a natural development in the economy, whereas Kyoto would cost the economy over $1 trillion with zero discernable benefit to the environment (impact on global warming long-term from kyoto was close to nil).
3. The biggest increases in CO2 emissions are coming from China and India. What does Kyoto do about that? Nothing, it exempts them!
4. Those countries that signed up for Kyoto in Europe - ooops! - are completely failing to meet the planned targets.
Kyoto is a failure already. See:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050515-094252-1586r.htm
"Consider the following projections for 2010 by member countries, as reported to Brussels, in relation to their now-operative Kyoto "Article 4" commitment of 8 percent below 1990: Portugal, over its promise by 77 percent, Spain by 61 percent, Greece by 51 percent, Ireland by 41 percent, Luxembourg by 31 percent, Finland by 27 percent, Denmark 26 percent, Italy by anywhere from 13 to 23 percent (following Italy's submission, the numbers discussed suddenly got worse), France by 19 percent, Austria by 18 percent, Belgium by 16 percent and the Netherlands by 10 percent.
Brussels masks these reported figures with clever rhetoric that does not withstand scrutiny nor crunching of the numbers that member states publicly submit, if with little fanfare. In early May, Spain became only the second EU country to (grudgingly) admit it will not comply.
These are not mere technicalities, but the reality behind the European Union's anti-U.S. rhetoric, and the stuff of political problems as talks presumptuously turn to a "second phase" of cuts. This is also why Italy has refused to consider the inane, operative EU posture of "Now that we have broken one promise, it is time to break an even bigger one!" "

The whole concept of Kyoto was and is wrong-headed. The solution needs to be longer-term, based on technology solutions not governmet dictat, and needs to be more comprehensive and less draconian.

As for:
"How you feel about it is ok, that is how you feel. " Liberal gobbledeegook ... how you "feeeeeel" ... please!
It's not how you feel, its how you THINK that is important! I sentence you to 10 hours of community service of listening to Michael Savage, so you can be sarcastically pummelled for your talking about "feelings".

Answer 9

Cos dear old Dubya can't put up the price of gas without alienating 95% of US voters. Simple really!

Answer 10

The carbon emissions standards are too restrictive for economic growth.
Unless we start using nuke plants.