As efforts to stop global warming have to be global, should we not put full economic trade sanctions on the countries that do not comply with it, beginning with the richest non-complier (followed by the next richest and so on, once the first ones have begun to comply .... and taking into account that they canNOT all be fully sanctioned at once, or else they will form a counterblock which might win out in a new Cold War) ? Would we have the guts to collectively isolate the USA if they were the worst offenders?
2006-11-12 03:48:58 · 19 answers · asked by Wise Kai 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Go ahead. Global warming is a MYTH!
We can treat them like the useless United League of Nations sanctions and ignore them, just like most of the Middle East! Why are you interested in penalizing the countries that have economies that grow instead of trying to become members of the free world economy?
2006-11-12 03:59:09 · answer #1 · answered by Bawney 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Good idea, but it won't work. Why? The United States is one country that does not follow it and China is another. Both these countries are incredibly rich and to not trade with them would be a mistake for any country who does follow the Kyote treaty. Someday soon I believe (or at least hope) all countries will follow it, but I don't that will happen anytime soon.
2006-11-12 03:53:44 · answer #2 · answered by bumpocooper 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You can't, China (the USA owes China a trillion dollars if these sanctions were put in place China could call in the dept and ruin the USA) and the USA are to powerful
2006-11-12 07:26:34 · answer #3 · answered by Bella 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
But who would put the sanctions in place when nobody is following it? Big business owns every country in the world except Cuba and we all know who owns that one.
2006-11-12 03:51:56 · answer #4 · answered by cosmiccastaway 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The world should put Sanctions on any Country Who Does Comply With Kyoto.
It was all a set-up.
Only a stupid country would fall for it.
EVEN THE DEMOCRATS HELPED VOTE DOWN KYOTO WHEN CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT.
The only pro-American thing they've done for decades.
2006-11-12 04:00:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Firstly, the information to support or deny the accord is split. It's far too complex to make a simple decision. Have you read the document? It basically puts the responsibility on the US for paying for everyone else's cleanup/retooling of energy systems. This is to combat a condition that nobody can agree on. Global warming. Respected scientists worldwide have reported that Al Gore's movie is hogwash and that his "experts" are discredited scientists. There is no doubt in my mind that things have to change worldwide...WORLDWIDE. I have a quote for you to consider.
"In July, the Senate passed a resolution 95-0 opposing the treaty if it did not apply to developing countries or if it harmed the U.S. economy. And analysts note that even if the treaty is implemented, there won't be much effect on global temperatures. Without developing nation participation, warming will drop a mere 0.19 degree Celsius over 50 years, according to the National Center for Atmospheric Research -- indistinguishable from normal year-to-year fluctuations.
The Energy Department says that by 2010:
* Real gross domestic product (GDP) will be down 4.1 percent, or $397 billion.
* The price of gas will be up 66 cents per gallon.
* The price of electricity will be up 86 percent.
Other predictions come from the economic consulting firm, WEFA:
* The price of home heating oil will be up 70 percent.
* Manufacturing wages will be down 2.1 percent.
* There will be 2.4 million fewer jobs.
* Real GDP per household will be down $2,728.
Source: Anna Bray Duff, "Kyoto Accords Divide Business," Investor's Business Daily, November 13, 1998. "
0.19 degrees celsius....over a 50 year span.
So, my answer to you is unequivocally a big fat no. Changes do need to be made, but given the impact of this accord, why should it fall on one country to support everyone else? Can't have it both ways kiddo, when the US gets involved in affairs of other countries, everyone wrings their hands in dismay and frantically fingers their worry beads. But, when it comes to paying your bills for you, it's a different story I guess.
2006-11-12 04:07:50 · answer #6 · answered by Rich B 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Definitely, every leader, starting with the United States,
should look after the interests of its people as well as
for other nations. If the president haven't got the time
to spare then he should get someone to represent
him otherwise no person would vote for him in which
case we have to closely monitor the automatic voting
machines.
2006-11-12 04:16:01 · answer #7 · answered by CAPTAIN BEAR 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Start with the countries that conveniently found themselves exempt !! That's my Yank opinion !!
2006-11-12 13:11:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Kyoto was meaningless ,we assume man is responsible ,global warming may be coming from another source ,after all they were wrong about cfcs.
2006-11-12 03:54:32 · answer #9 · answered by joseph m 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
The USA has already said they would abide by it if it includes India and China...the largest polluters in the world.
2006-11-12 03:57:28 · answer #10 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋