because quite frankly, the benefits of the treaty are long term only and it'd be too expensive to cut our emissions. Plus we're a superpower so we generally just do what we want.
As to the first question, theyre the only first world nations. Theres a graph on the page following this that shows all sorts of nations that havent.
2007-01-03 09:12:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by KitsuneBoi85 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, the US Senate defeated the Kyoto measure by a vote of 95-5. Better ask them. LOL
2007-01-03 09:18:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You are wise. Kyoto was nothing but a trick.
It was such a bad treaty, that even some of the Democrats voted against. That surprised even the Democrat Party.
2007-01-03 09:13:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
because it wouldn't be honest to sign up for the kyoto treaty and then not follow it, which is what the rest of the first world did! and following it would just destroy the economy when there's effective ways to deal with global warming without following some stupid treaty.
2007-01-03 09:10:13
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
well i guess the USA does what it wants and its leaders don't care about polluting the environment etc. business, making money comes first. australia seems to follow the USA's lead, john howard is such an ***-licker to the USA, he also has stated that business and economy comes before the environment. as an australian, i am ashamed of out government, not just on this issue.
2007-01-03 09:16:28
·
answer #5
·
answered by uenuku 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
they are very concerned about the environment. From what I understand the there are different rules for "developing" than for "industrialized" nations. It is not in our best interest to sign under these conditions. It would render Industrialized nations unable to compete.
2007-01-03 09:18:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Actually, the US did sign it. We didn't ratify it.
We are concerned about polluting the environment. We are not concerned about making treaties about it.
2007-01-03 19:52:05
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
because signing the protocol would demand an investment in technologies that would REDUCE not only pollution but likely consumption and that would cut into the profits of the most influential companies in the US.
2007-01-03 09:11:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by r1b1c* 7
·
1⤊
3⤋
Here:
http://www.ct-yankee.com/manfctry/kyoto.html
http://www.planetizen.com/node/14994
http://www.junkscience.com/
Here's Canada's take did not help them any:
http://www.taxpayer.com/main/oped.php?oped_id=196
http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/01/22/CanadaKillKyoto/
2007-01-03 09:17:03
·
answer #9
·
answered by jasonzbtzl 4
·
0⤊
0⤋