Why didn't Clinton sign the Kyoto treaty?

Question

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226203,00.html

Here all this time the liberals say it was a Bush plot.

Answer 1

Not only the Clinton and Bush administrations opposed it, but so did the Democrats AND Republicans of Congress. Once they read it, they all said not just no but hell no. This excerpt is why:

"A year earlier, the Senate, which must ratify all international treaties, passed a resolution that it would not approve the Kyoto Protocol until it was rewritten to include emissions-reduction targets for developing as well as industrialized countries."

We would have passed it except for that. The treaty says, in essence, that developed countries had to shut down a certain percentage of factories/power plants/industry each year for a certain period of years. If this had been required of all countries, we'd have gone along with it. But it wasn't. China, Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. and all of Africa and all other countries designated as non-developed would be allowed to continue to build polluting industries/factories because they were "under privileged."

The net effect was no real reduction in gases, cause while the developed world would be cutting back and wrecking their economies, non-developed nations would be building pollution sources and increasing their wealth at the expense of the first world countries.

Answer 2

There's a difference between "signing" and "ratifying." The USA did "sign" Kyoto - but we didn't ratify it.

That would not be Clinton's doing. The constitution says that the Senate has the final say over ratifying "treaties," our Senate thankfully did not.

Anyway, to call Kyoto a "treaty" is just stupid. It was a bad agreement, and it belongs on the ash heap of history.

Love Jack

Answer 3

If you've read the treaty, the penalties to the US would have been huge.
Plus, it was made to work similarly to how pollution credits in the US work.
If you have a large facility, you are granted, let's say 50 credits.
Let's say, you improve the efficiency of your plant so you don't need 50 credits anymore. Let's say you only need 25 now.
Well, you can actually sell your other 25 credits to another company that cannot afford to modernize currently, but can afford to buy your credits.
So, the overall picture is, if it is cheaper to buy credits than to modernize and lower or eliminate pollution, the pollution continues.

Answer 4

lol the one thing that I can say I agree with clintons actions


they Kyoto treaty is a joke.

Answer 5

OMG. get over it. he's not in place of work anymore. stop attempting to take the interest off Bush already. he's the only in place of work now and inflicting a heck of diverse issues for the entire u . s . a . with those criminal experts that were fired.

Answer 6

Maybe because it would be a disaster for the US? Maybe because the Senate would have rejected by the most lopsided vote ever against a treaty?

Answer 7

Because Congress had to sign it. Understand the working of your own Gvt before you post a question like this.

Answer 8

Wait a second, Clinton signed it.
http://inside.bard.edu/politicalstudies/student/PS260Spring03/kyotocol.htm

I suggest you check the facts.

Answer 9

The senate has to ratify it before the president can sign it and it was clear that it wouldn't pass or even be voted on.

Answer 10

They will not believe you because it is not from CNN

EDIT: I guess Clinton signed it, but too bad it never did anything