Why is Bush blamed for the US not ratifying the Kyoto treaty?

Question

Did you know it was signed (only a formality) by Al Gore in 1997..but the Clinton administration never presented it to Congress? Did you know that the Byrd-Hagel resolution on environment and signing the treaty was voted down 95-0? Bush has not presented the treaty to Congress either...so why does all the blame fall on his shoulders?

Beachbum: we are still a signatory member...but that's just a formality. We have never ratified the treaty, which means we don't participate. Gore signed the treaty in '97...but nothing has changed since then. Check out wikipedia..they have a good page on it.

Answer 1

Because he actually had the guts to explain why he didn't sign it.

His lack of willingness to sign it isn't because he doesn't care about the environment, it's because Kyoto requires the US to pay for not only it's own cleanup, but subsidize the cleanup of other nations.

It also gives to control over our power grid to an entity outside the US. I'm thinking the reasons that is a bad idea should be kinda obvious....

Kyoto: Good for the world, bad for America. We can clean up our emissions ourselves without the international community telling us how to do it, and us paying them to do so.

Answer 2

I'm not an expert but I believe it's because Clinton was didling around with Monica and there was a Republican congress that would have voted it down. Bush decided to pull out of the Kyoto agreement as soon as he entered office. The initiative for the agreement was led by the U.S. in the first place, thats why a lot of countries were irratated at the U.S. when Bush snubbed them and backed out without discussion.

Answer 3

well... frankly... the kyoto treaty is FAR down on my list of concerns... in fact... I don't think it's even on my list... but anyway...

just throwing it out there... maybe Clinton didn't bring it before congress because the Republicans dominated congress and he didn't feel like wasting his time?

But, I suppose you could say the same about Bush... the difference being... it's Bush's party... and, like it or not... he's kind of the face of the party and takes the blame for the parties actions, even if they are not his own...

Answer 4

Because the buck stops at the top of the ladder.

I'm not fully educated on the Kyoto treaty but something is not making sense here: if the Clinton admin. didn't renew our participation in it, then why were we still a member of it until Bush didn't renew it?

Something is smelly rather fishy here.

Answer 5

Because they came up with some nonsense that said that Global Warming doesn't exist, written by a Lawyer disputing 50 years of scientists from all over the World. The Republicans want to drill oil in Alaska...

Answer 6

Water boarding would not kill and would not have any long term effects. The voters have been additionally risky. you may justify the two techniques. i'm no longer asserting its okay to do any of it. George Washington exchange into good. Political events are a foul ingredient. no longer something we do ever happens because of the fact somebody opposes it.

Answer 7

Because President Bush gets blamed for everything. This is the new liberal platform. They can't come up with any solutions or plan so they are just going to whine us to death.

Answer 8

Because most people that blame Bush for everything dont have a clue what they are talking about.

Answer 9

Who cares anyways...no nation that signed it has even come close to the goals of the treaty....so pretty much it is worth about as much as toilet paper.

Answer 10

Kyoto is bad policy, so the right thing is to stay away from it - there is nothing to blame.