Who gives a darn. Let's just bash Bush and ignore Clinton's own policy.
Oh, in case you care, Clinton REFUSED to support Kyoto. He said it would hurt American's jobs.
Now.. back to our hatred of Bush.
2007-02-02 06:10:45 · 7 answers · asked by junglejoe 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
And let's not underestimate the fact that that Global Warming has been his own Vice Presiden't soapbox issue since the early 70's, according to his documentary! Kyoto must have been VP Gore's wet dream, and even with THAT kind of influence, Clinton still rejected it!
2007-02-02 06:17:43 · answer #1 · answered by lizardmama 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gore signed it instead in an empty gesture. incredibly rattling sharp do not you think of? Going against the President, the prefer of the human beings and the Senate who voted unanimously to nor ratify the treaty. Edit - ArgleBargle you're incorrect, Clinton never signed it. From Wikipedia - "The Clinton administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification." Edit ph yo you may are turning out to be thumbs down for the reason which you're incorrect. President Clinton warned with regard to the financial harm that entering into the Kyoto Treaty might reason to the U. S.. He never supported or signed it.
2016-10-16 11:15:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Shhhh. Don't tell them. I love hearing them run around talking about how Bush is to blame. These "enlightened liberals" seem to forget that the Senate voted something like 98-0 against it and Clinton didn't sign it before he left office. If their hero was such a champion of the environment, why didn't he sign it?
2007-02-02 06:20:11 · answer #3 · answered by Gus K 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What I've read is that neither of them supported it because it's not feasible and that none of the countries who signed it have managed to live up to it.
It's all wishful thinking. Decreasing energy usage has to be an individual thing and each of us must be the ones to do it.
2007-02-02 06:21:12 · answer #4 · answered by Sean 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One of these days the cons on this board will understand that there is a difference between irrational hatred of someone and wanting serious answers to important questions regarding policies that affect millions of Americans.
2007-02-02 06:18:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because it would hurt his approval rating(the only thing he cared about) by crippling our economy(the reason European socialist and the Chinese love the idea). He also enacted other legislation near and dear to environmentalist on his last day in office as not to deal with the repercussions.
2007-02-02 06:16:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmmm... he bashed Kyoto, but signed NAFTA... yeah, that makes a lot of sense...
2007-02-02 06:16:49 · answer #7 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋