Why is the Kyoto Protocol a BAD DEAL for America??

Question

1.Would create sever damage to the US economy
2.China is exempt from the protocol ( they are the second largest emitter)
2.India is also exempt (another large emitter)
3.Gives every other country an economic advantage while reducing the US’s.
4.Harmful to industrial growth of democratic countries. i.e. the United States

Basically, the treaty works in such a way that it harms the United States and has little to no effect on the rest of the world. Essentially, the EU wants to bring the US down to its level of productivity. They are unable to keep up with the United States in terms of; agriculture, industrialization, productivity, research, and just about everything else. So…Rather than learning to play the game, the EU wants to reduce our potency on the playing field…It’s kind of like telling Michel Johnson to stop running so fast because “we can’t keep up”…We Americans are not as stupid as you would like to think we are… We just play the game better..

Answer 1

Umm, the US is maintaining it's lifestyle by borrowing from the chinese not from being productive. The rest of the world would love it if the current government would start worrying about the economy.

Answer 2

While it is true that China and India, today are polluting a lot, please bear in mind the amount of pollution today's developed countries have created over time during their process of development.

By trying to restrict their emissions as closely as that of developed countries, you are actually restricting their development. To use your analogy, this is like Micheal Johnson telling his competitors, 'sorry guys you cannot use the gym to build your muscles to compete with me; try lifting some rocks or something.' Sure they can lift rocks and build muscles, but will they ever be able to compete with Micheal Johnson? Are you saying Micheal Johnson is scared of them?

The reason why developed nations are treated differently from developing nations is precisely that highlighted above. Furthermore, a lot of the pollution that takes place in developing countries comes, not from huge factories freely dispensing toxic chemicals into the atmosphere because they can't be bothered to clean up, but from individuals using wood/charcoal/petrol stoves to cook their food because that's the only way they can afford to cook their food.

Developed countries are lumped together; the US has more to do simply because guess who is the top emitter. If the efforts to clean up are relatively proportional to the amount emitted in the developed nations bucket, isn't that fair? How does that give the EU an advantage over the US? Unless you are saying that the technology used in the US is so old that it cannot be easily cleaned up, and the costs of clean-up in the US are much higher than in the EU. But if you pollute more, shouldn't you pay more to clean up?

The treaty does not harm the US and benefit the rest of the world. It makes a distinction between rich/developed economies, and poor/developing economies, and treats members each group in a relatively fair way.

I think the bottom line is: do you think it is ok to pollute as much as you want to produce what you will be using today? Would it be okay for Micheal Johnson to take performance enhancing drugs that make him win today's race, but also cause him and his opponents (and probably their children and grandchildren...) health problems later?

I don't think so, that's why I think that while the Kyoto Protocol is not perfect, we should all adhere to it, and as other countries develop in the future, they should be 'promoted' to the developed country bucket and treated like other developed countries.

Answer 3

America does not like the Kyoto Protocol because it will cost a lot of money for the American to reduce their emmissions.

America is a developed country, just the same as Europe, and should reduce their emmissions in line with the reductions that are happening in Europe. I can't see how you can claim that it gives America a disadvantage over Europe, and I can't see how it can give Europe a commerical advantage. It costs European companies money to reduce emmissions, just the same as it costs the Americans.

The aim of the treaty is to reduce emmissions, not level economic playing fields. America does have the technology and money to do this, but has been so lax in controlling emmissions to date that it has a lot of catching up to do.

India and China are exempt as they are developing countries. To bring their emmission down would require massive investment in new technology and facilities that is beyond them. E.g. Almost every power station would need to be replaced.

Answer 4

Really, it would not hardly make any sort of damage to the economy. Little damage = no advantage given = not harmful to industrial growth (also, the US is a republic, not a democracy). The protocol would, however, increase the respect the rest of the world has for the US by showing that the US does have respect for the environment. The pollution that we now create carries to all countries. Time to lower it.

Answer 5

True . And the facts are that the nations that have signed onto the treaty are not even meeting their commitments. It's being used as a new source of stealth tax.
They're adding sin taxes on fuel, even home heating oil. It's like, excuse me, I'm being punished for having to heat my home and drive my car.
What they should be doing is adding tax incentives for installing super-efficient heating systems, solar, bio fuel cars, etc.
It's all tax tax tax in the EU. If there's a problem, tax it.
About 4 years ago, Ireland decided that these plastic bags you get at the supermarket were a pollution menace. Solution: The plastic bag tax.

Answer 6

In god we trust?

The Kyoto Protocol is but the first step to reason, my friend.

Pollution is a universal threat, and while we treat this threat to mankind's demise (not forgetting the nuclear war threat) as a whats-in-it-for-me? issue then we are no further up the evolutionary ladder than our ancestors of 100 000 years ago.

I will not change your mind but you are not considering this problem with enough seriousness.

Selfishness is the root of all our problems.

Answer 7

Because it would mean that the supporters of, or members of, the present administration wouldn't have so much money to play around with (or bribe politicians), due to the fall in profits having to clean up their act industrially.

Answer 8

it truly is a scam depending in theory shown fake which will take our funds and deliver it to UN crooks and different international places. the way it truly is written might want to placed the UN on suitable of problems with our economic gadget because both% tax on each and each transaction might want to wreck our economic gadget and they could have us by technique of the balls. it would want to have the end results of our dropping a conflict, without our enemies having to hearth a shot. Obama is our enemy and he's operating for this, and he and others operating with him will be paid large time if he pulls it off.

Answer 9

I agree, dude. These ecofreaks want to stop us from makin' money cuz there all jelus of our success and how much oil we can afford. If they were rich an successful like us, they'd buy more oil and use more elctricity, but there all poor LOSERS, so they pretend to be for the "enviraments."

Answer 10

I always thought we were an example to the world as the richest nation. We probably should try to adopt that as much as possible. Is europe apart of it and has it affected them economicaly?