If the Clinton adminstration agreed with the Kyoto Protocol why did they not sign it?

Question

Why was the Kyoto Protocol left to the next adminstration to sign rather than the existing administration who was in agreement with the terms of the protocol

Answer 1

Clinton agreed to the Kyoto Protocol, but could not get it to pass the Republican Senate. http://inside.bard.edu/politicalstudies/student/PS260Spring03/kyotocol.htm

Answer 2

I believe it was signed, in principal, by Al Gore on behalf of the Clinton Administration in 1998. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification who turned it down on a vote of 95-0. They were right. It would have given China and India unfair advantages. The US and Australia are the only 2 countries that have not signed on and George Bush has said he will not sign at any time during his presidency unless certain changes are made.

Answer 3

My wager is that Clinton could sign the Kyoto Protocol as a symbolic gesture, yet there is not any way we are able to fulfill its emissions savings objectives by applying 2012 at this factor, pondering how plenty our emissions have greater beneficial in the process the previous few years. My opinion of Kyoto become that it become a small step interior the excellent direction. It in basic terms required that the signing international places cut back their greenhouse gas emissions by applying a small volume, yet this could get the ball rolling for bigger destiny savings. i think of the subsequent settlement after Kyoto could have heavily bigger emissions savings objectives.

Answer 4

Clinton never had a chance to sign it. Bush doesn't care about the environment and won't sign it. Bush has made no effort as far as I know to make changes to the treaty so the USA could sign it.

Answer 5

Clinton didn't have a chance to sign it but many American cities have followed the protocols on their own. Our country can be slow to react and our politicians are generally not leaders but followers of polls and constituents money. It is up to the American people to demand that the US has a civic responsibility to the earth.

Answer 6

It wasn't up to Clinton to sign it. All treaties have to be approved by the Senate.
There were two problems:
1) The treaty required developed countries like America and Britain to cut back, but not India and China which continue to burn massive ammounts of coal to produce electric power. America has always thought that was a tad unfair.
2)The Republicans do not believe in protecting the enviroment nor do they believe in international treaties. The treaty was not approved.
Bush of course, playing to his wingnut base has vowed never to endorse it.

Answer 7

Damn good question. I suspect that the motivation was political for internal consumption. Had Gore won he would have signed it and therefore become an environmental champion. The calculation was that on the outside chance that Bush would win, he would not sign it and therefore expose him as the "to hell for the environment, full speed ahead" nincompoop he is.

Answer 8

For 1 thing, the Senate, in a non binding vote rejected it almost unanimously. It was something loke 97-2, I don't remember exactly. It is bad for the US.

Answer 9

That's an excellant point!! Why did the next President sign it if we don't have to worry about greenhouse effect and global warming! Maybe Gore has something.

Answer 10

They thought the premise was good, but the time-line was unreasonable.