Because multinational corporations aren't fond of environmental regulations (they're bad for profits); if we ratify & enforce the Kyoto protocol we'd only be accelerating the pace at whcih the corporations are outsourcing our high-paying jobs. Outsourcing is, in turn, accelerating the rate at which the elite get richer while the aspiring midle class get dumped in the mud. There is no international body of law strong enough to enforce limitations on the transferrance of capital of the wealthy and their corporations... I think because the wealthy make the laws. If we ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the elite would balk at our presumptive attidtude and, after distributing the vast majority of their assets all over the world (where no mere national revolution can be that threatening), settle in a place like China where the hoi polloi are kept in place. IMHO, The U.S.S.R. should have defaulted on its loans and crashed the world economy.
2006-10-16 20:37:13
·
answer #1
·
answered by horuschorus 1
·
2⤊
0⤋
The USA like Australia have many negative environmental industries which are large and critical drivers of their economies, and therefore they justify this reason as being why they aren't signatories of the Kyoto protocol. They do not care about future generations, and the fact that our planet is in distress. Short term profit blinds any vision the leaders have of a future which involves alternative sources of energy. It is political cowardliness, ignorance, and greedy irresponsibility.
2006-10-17 08:28:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by PS Drummer 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Actually China and a few other countries place alot more pollution in the atmosphere than America even tho we are in the top 5. one reason is as usual they want us to pay for most of the costs. They ***** about it, they want it fixed, but as always they want the USA to fix it while they yell about us. Kind of like an environmental United Nations. We bear the cost, they use it as a platform to call us names.
2006-10-17 08:28:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by mark g 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because there is no scientific consensus on global warming first, and second it would kill the American economy.
Just 32 years ago, climate 'experts' were telling us that the earth was overdue for another ice age. Both Newsweek and Time magazines had cover stories on it. So now we're supposed to believe the 'experts' that say that the earth is warming up?
Last, but not least, is that if you presume that global warming is based on human activity, and you presume that that's a bad thing, the logical conclusion to that is that we need fewer humans. Are you ready to die to solve global warming? I'm not.
2006-10-17 11:17:12
·
answer #4
·
answered by mikey 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
because the pollution created in usa is by far the biggest in the worlld and it would cost too much to remedy. better spend the money on wars
2006-10-17 08:10:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by jean marc l 6
·
0⤊
1⤋