Was congress right to say not to the kyoto agreement?

Question

Lowering carbon emissions is a big thing and we need to do something. America makes up a large percentage of the carbon emissions in the world and while many countries are trying to lower the emissions the US does nothing. Clinton and Bush were both in agreement that the kyoto agreements should be signed but congress said no twice. Do you think they were right? if so they why? and what do you think are the best methods for lowering carbon emissions?

Answer 1

No

The only reason the USA refused to the Kyoto agmt was due to corporation expense. It was going to cost corporations a lot of money to conform to the new rules.

Their argument was that it would have too much of a negative affect on the economy... with corporations making record profits, I really don't see how that washes... ya know.

Answer 2

The Kyoto accords only placed restrictions on Europe and the USA and did nothing to restrict the emmissions from other serious industrial polluters like China, India, and Russia. (to mention just a few)

The US Congress rightly saw the accord not as an environmental instrument, but a tool to destroy western economies particularly the US.

Note that France decided to volutarily adhere to the Kyoto accords and failed miserably. The restrictions were impossible to adhere to without increasing unemployment and national debt. Would you rather be a part of the current French economy or the current US economy?

Answer 3

The U.S. Environmental safety company (EPA) has been engaged on environmental issues through fact 1972. Air and water pollution is so plenty extra suited than it fairly is been. It takes extra advantageous than the country to handle the worldwide's environmental issues. it rather is a few thing that desires to be performed with the help of everybody all over the realm. All worldwide places can do some thing to help, no count what their financial or political prestige is. The Kyoto settlement is barely in simple terms a splash the pie. Why do not different worldwide places cope with different environmental matters? there's a difficulty with the quantity of methane created from elephant and rhino dung, different worldwide places nonetheless have uncooked sewage working down their streets, nuclear failures ensue in different worldwide places, ocean dumping is a difficulty in different worldwide places, radioactive wastes are a difficulty in different worldwide places, etc. Why do human beings constantly look to the country for help?

Answer 4

Adhering to the Kyoto agreement would have been the smart and right thing to do. (I actually remember Bush not even showing up to the Kyoto summit, so I don't think he was in favor of it) Unfortunately, I heard that none of the countries that were at the summit have adhered to the regulations that they set, so far.

Answer 5

Of course it's going to cost alot.....but what other plan has been brought forward. The fact of the matter is, if "we", the industrial nations do not bring in strict regulations we are doing nothing to solve the problem.

This does not only apply to large corporations but to the individual as well. I don't see many people willing to give up the luxuries that we have come to expect in the west (think Hummer and air conditioners).

Answer 6

We always say Yes to Israel while we say no to Japan.

What if the Kyoto Conference took place in Jerusalem orr Tel Aviv?

Fewer citizens and industries - lower carbon emissions - more oil for India and China.

Answer 7

1 - Yes.

2 - Yes.

3 - A worldwide emissions-trading scheme.

Answer 8

Anyone who says no does not realize that the kyoto agreement would destroy our economy and put us into third world status. That's exactly what it was designed to do. These liberals fail to realize that most other countries won't adhere to the agreement either.

Answer 9

yes,take your head out of the liberal sand,china,mexico,india,russia,produce more carbon emissions,than the U.S.,heck Germany,and france can not meet their so called reduction target,what a waste off time.

Answer 10

Ignoring the problem won't make it go away, regardless of what Congress thinks.

That being said, I don't like legislative regulation of business in general. But if we're going to have it, then this is as good as reason as any.