“The world's got a pretty simple choice here. It's between President Bush and grandchildren.”?

Question

~ Australian Senator Bob Brown (quoted)
I want to know who watched Inconvenient Truth, who agreed with it and who is going to do something to help our planet which is going quickly down the drain. Also who wants america to sign the Kyoto Accord, and why on earth wouldn't they??????? Please give informational answers.

If 1000 to 1 scientists say global warming is a serious problem, even George Bush has now stated that it is a major problem, why agian am I ignorant for believing it, there is a time to take a stand for something you believe in and there is a time to OPEN your eyes and not believe sources that are paid by ExxonMobil in the form of 13,000000 since 1998 to say there is nothing wrong with global warming.

Answer 1

Neocons are only for the interests of the rich corporations, so pollution isn't an issue to them. Regulation has to be imposed on them, and their answer was to outsource manufacturing and pollute the environments of Mexico and China. Neocons have no conscience, and I think you should report the comment above me for the belligerent answer and BJ comment.

Answer 2

The Kyoto Protocol exempts 80 percent of the world from compliance. According to the United Nations, of the 84 countries that have signed the Protocol, only 32 developing countries--which will not be subject to its emissions targets--and Romania have ratified it. No major industrialized Annex I country has done so.The treaty sets targets for greenhouse gas emissions for each participating country based on its 1990 emission levels. Unlike much of the world, the United States has grown considerably since 1990, and this places it at a great disadvantage compared to countries whose economies have fallen. Those countries may even benefit under the treaty because they will have "lost" emissions.Western Europe, which has grown since 1990, has aligned itself with slumping Eastern Europe to take advantage of the declines in emissions in those countries. Taking Europe as a whole, the region must reduce emissions only a few percent to reach its Kyoto targets.The United States would have to reduce emissions by almost 30 percent to reach its Kyoto targets. This means that while the European abatement program will cost roughly $5 per ton, the United States program could cost as much $100/ton.
It explicitly exempts developing countries from any targets.Any agreement that allows developing countries to continue emitting greenhouse gases would in effect negate the efforts of those countries that are trying to reduce them.Developing countries are significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions now and especially in the future.
October 15, 2006 Australias' Prime Minister John Howard because of up coming elections , agreed under pressure, to sign the Kyoto but said " nothing will be gained by this — nonsense "
The US will be better off with a plan like the Asia Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate which will not harm the economy of the countries involved.. Believe it or not , our economy is a big deal..

Answer 3

We, meaning the people, are powerless in this issue. As long as Bush doesn't lie to Congress he is untouchable for the next two years. Lying to the American people? He can do that all he wants. That is not against the law. All we can do is sit back and watch as this country's credibility in the world goes down the tube.

Answer 4

That's quite a stupid statement, regardless of the source. No wonder I haven't wasted my time with Al Gore's propaganda flick - it's obviously full of crap.

For the scientifically impaired, the Earth is not "going quickly down the drain." That's a load of bunk. Even if the worst-case (i.e. fake) predictions are true (and they aren't), it would still take centuries for there to be any noticeable effect. And Kyoto would not help one little bit.

Some scientists have analyzed the effects of Kyoto, and found that it would, after 50 years, reduce greenhouse gases by less than ½%. In other words, no effect for a huge human cost. That's why the Senate rejected it 95-0 when Clinton first put it before them. It's a useless treaty that would harm the US economy, and not solve any environmental issues.

There's a reason why you should be leery of knee-jerkism regarding the environment, and be especially wary of people who spew ignorant soundbites like that.

Answer 5

The Kyoto Protocol is a joke. It holds "developing nations" (like China) to NO restrictions. If the U.S. were to sign that treaty, all it would do is shift the SOURCE of greenhouse emissions somewhere else, not reduce them. I am thoroughly convinced that the Kyoto Protocol is not actually designed to reduce greenhouse gasses, but is designed as an attack on western industry.

Answer 6

No America should not sign the Kyoto accord because its only function is to hinder us. we DEFINITELY should not do it just because some *ss from another country says so.

Answer 7

The world had a simple choice:

3000 lives and the WTC

or

BIowjob for the president.

Thanks dems.