Would the Kyoto treaty reduce pollution in the U.S. if we signed it?

Answer 1

No. We'd merely buy credits from third world countries and put out the same amount of emissions. That was the Kyoto Plan, make it if you want or buy credits if you don't. It was always just a mediocre plan at best and no one would have cared about it if the US hadn't refused to sign.

Answer 2

The Kyoto treaty is reducing pollution in the World, but we are not part of the solution. The formula that makes developed countries move faster than undeveloped countries is the right way to go at it. Or, going at it in any real way will help everyone.
What is wrong with giving incentives to the third world to begin lowing their pollution standards while we do the same. The whole world contributes to the problem, so the whole world needs to work together to fix the problem.
The stakes are pretty high also, survival!

Answer 3

yes...The protocol has never been submitted to the senate for ratification. The Bush administration has referred to a vote on the non-binding Byrd-Hagel resolution, which registered views on some aspects of protocol negotiations. The vote on the Byrd-Hagel resolution took place prior to the conclusion of the Kyoto agreement, and before any of the flexibility mechanisms were established. The resolution was written so broadly that even strong supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, such as senators Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) voted for it. In doing so, Sen. Kerry said: "It is clear that one of the chief sponsors of this resolution, Senator Byrd . . . agrees … that the prospect of human-induced global warming as an accepted thesis with adverse consequences for all is here, and it is real…. Senator Lieberman, Senator Chafee and I would have worded some things differently… [but] I have come to the conclusion that these words are not a treaty killer."The Bush administration has done absolutely no analysis to substantiate its claim that the Kyoto Protocol or domestic policies to reduce carbon dioxide pollution from power plants would seriously harm the U.S. economy. While industry trade associations have published many misleading claims of economic harm, two comprehensive government analyses have shown that it is possible to reduce greenhouse pollution to levels called for in the Kyoto agreement without harming the U.S. economy.

In 1998, the White House Council of Economic Advisors concluded that the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol would be "modest" -- no more than a few tenths of 1 percent of gross domestic product in 2010, equivalent to adding no more than a month or two to a ten-year forecast for achieving a vastly increased level of wealth in this country. A subsequent and more detailed study by five Department of Energy national laboratories found that policies to promote increases in energy efficiency would allow the United States to make most of the emission reductions required to comply with the Kyoto Protocol through domestic measures that have the potential to improve economic performance over the long run.[3] The only study that President Bush cited in announcing his reversal on CO2 reductions, a report by the Energy Information Administration, failed to consider the inexpensive greenhouse pollution reductions that can be achieved through energy efficiency. The study also ignored the Kyoto Protocol's flexible market mechanisms, which the United States has spent the last three years negotiating with other signatories.

While the Bush administration may assert that previous government cost studies are inaccurate, there is no basis for such a view. The current administration has not conducted its own analysis of the costs of the Kyoto agreement.

Answer 4

The Kyoto Protocol has been signed. Bush refused to ratify it-which makes a signature extra or much less symbolic. in fact the Kyoto Protocol replaced into caught in bureaucratic purple tape using fact the Clinton administration and US Congress have been placing a schedule for US agencies to conform and additionally waiting for key coming up worldwide places to additionally sign.

Answer 5

No...the wind does not stop at our borders...all the polution generated by Mexico, and all those other 3rd world countries, which are exempt from the treaty will cause a whole lot more damage that we ever would...however, with the Kyoto treaty in place, it will hamper the American economy.

Answer 6

Yes, indeed! Bush, shortly upon taking office, said no to the agreement after promising that he would. Now you know his oil exec buddies were behind this to make him change his mind on the Kyoto Treaty! And you saw the end result!

Answer 7

It won't make any difference unless they implement it and follow the guidelines.

Joe: Instead of spouting your uninformed opinions, why can't you face facts. 25% of all the greenhouse emissions in the world come from the United States. Sorry if this does not fit in with your agenda of blaming it on other countries.

Answer 8

Only if we adhered to it. Republicans have a nasty habit of ignoring our own laws and international treaties.

Answer 9

Probably would, but compliance would mean crippling changes to the way our society works. So the question becomes 'would the benefit be worth the costs?'.

Answer 10

Yes, at the extreme cost of efficiency and would ultimately harm the economy horribly.