Why wont America sign a Carbon Emmision Agreement?

Question

The US is the biggest offender in the World of releasing emmisions into the atmosphere.They have stated it will cost jobs,is that a good enough reason in opposition to destroying the planet.I would think they should show am example to the rest of the abstainers.The Uk is propsing tax hikes of 20% to deal with this ongoing problem.

I use the word Example to cover the know alls in relation to China

Answer 1

I think there is a lot of mis-information around, and that propaganda has been getting to people.

Let me tell a little story.

There was this guy in school. He started doing weights, and after a few months, he grew real huge muscles. And in the gym class, he used to pummell all his oponents in the boxing matches. Now this guy wants to ban others from using the weights because using weights is noisy. Do you think that the guy is right? Do you support him or think he should stop being so scared of his classmates?

That's the story of the US, who destroyed the environment during its development, trying to block China's development by comparing the emissions today, as opposed to looking at the damage done over time.

Secondly I'd like to address the issue of loss of jobs if the protocol is accepted. I think that in an economy where CEOs can make millions, doing simple things like investing in scrubbing of chimneys or in equipment that is good for one's children is very affordable. Afterall, the CEOs decided to go ahead with the pollution and ignore newer cleaner technology, they should take responsibility for their decisions. I think the share options are more at risk than the workers, but of course, share options are non-negotiable, and that is the real issue.

Bottomline, The US doesn't want to sign th eKyoto protocol because it will hurt the pay packets of the corporate bosses, while allowing competitors to catch-up which will also endanger the huge pay packets. Therefore the huge lobbies and the resultant refusal to sign.

Just follow the money...

Answer 2

The cost of curtailing emissions either by replacing fuels with lower carbon content ones, capturing emissions, increasing fuel efficiency has to be paid by someone. No matter who pays at what stage, the cost will always end up borne by the consumer in higher prices and lower wages or number of jobs. The consumer data- wages, unemployment, Gross Domestic Product (how much is spent) are all numbers politicians live by. Mess with those, mess with their ambitions. On the corporate side, you would be messing with the earnings of companies and their leaders. The costs they bear would lower their earnings expections and increase expenditures and lower their ability to compete. Thus hurting some big wigs pocket book. Who do they complain too? The politicians. SO signing Carbon Emission Agreement would be akin to suicide for most politicians. Until the American people are willing to bear a greater amount of the responsibility for their carbon emissions and support companies that do like wise, nothing can really change. See California- the people support and expect the necessary changes and the Governator is enacting changes to his states carbon policies.

Answer 3

So, let me get this straight --

You want to live in an economic depression so we can try to lower carbon emissions?

Here are some other ideas:

1. We turn off your heat and electricty.

2. We take your car.

3. We keep Al Gore from flying 20+ hours in a plane to give a 2-hour speech

4. We stop producing anything, meaning that the world's economy takes a direct hit. I'm sure that outer Yakivonia can produce all of our meds eventually, right?


We don't sign the agreement because it causes massive hardship, will produce absolutely no affect to any global climate change, and the US already has some of the most stringent emissions laws in the world (compare to, say, Mexico or China).

Answer 4

Hey a few answers !! There are some people still awake but of course they are all wrong (especially the Americans!)
The real reason is the the NRA, Oil Companies, and other "interested" parties won't let Bush ad co. agree to anything that doesn't fit with their vision...
The last American president tha wasn't supported by strings and manacles was Kennedy (which is why they shot him!).
Until a president has real courage and "grit" to buck big business that is the way it will stay.
the American public are so ill-informed about the whole issue it is comical. That is the way they are kept - in the dark and voting the way of the plan.
save the planet - turn off America (and China).....

Answer 5

The main reasons have been pretty well documented (USA business interests and their dubious relationships with politicians leading to extreme protective measures). The real issue is that if the USA does not get on the bandwagon, neither will China and other emerging industrial countries so the whole issue is gonna fall flat on it's face despite the efforts of more forward looking nations.

Answer 6

First of all, the US is NOT the biggest offender, China is.

Second, if you actually read this agreement, you will find that most of the restrictions apply directly, solely, and exclusively to the United States.

Just like most of this propaganda that went before it, it is a veiled attempt to cripple the US economy in a way that the US citizens will not realize it's true intent until it is too late.

Ecology is good, Environmentalism is almost always propaganda with a hidden agenda.

Answer 7

I'm British.
It would seem the U.S stance would be 'no other big player is gonna do it,so why should we?
My view,for what it's worth is that the U.S.thinks of itself as a world leader,so why not lead by example?
Show the rest of the world what can be done,with technology for example,to reduce global warming.
It's all very well for everyone to 'stick their heads in the sand' and pretend it aint gonna happen,but this attitude isn't gonna help our kids or grandchildren in the future.
And no i'm not a tree hugger,I love cars with big engines,flying round the world & lots of other unecological things but I do realise something needs to be done & soon.

Answer 8

Because we are like an aircraft carrier that cannot stop on a moments notice. The inertia of our economy prohibits us from signing on to treaties from SMALL countries. It's all about physics butt head.

We are completely aware of global warming, and we will more than likely take a leadership role in curbing it. But it's not going to happen on your timetable you idiot, because you can't even articulate a solution in your question.

We will address the problem without hysteria.

Go smoke some more crack limey.

PS einstien, you might want to take a look at China, Rusia, India, and the EU (which you will be swallowed by shortly)

Answer 9

really, what problems will this solve in the long run, the world, not just america, is responsible for only a minor fraction of the damage done to the enviroment, unless you want to fire proof all the trees, cork the volcanoes, kill the cows, and find a way to cool the sun, I suggest you get over it.

its not the first time its happened on earth, and it wont be the last

Answer 10

Are you talking about the Kyoto Treaty? I believe only Australia is in compliance with that agreement. It was a joke. You don't have to reduce emissions (and the vast majority haven't), you can just trade credits. How convenient.