Ok we need to talk the kyoto protocol people......?

Question

I have noticed that this question has come up a couple of times already. Why did America and Australia fail to sign the kyoto protocol. And I think not one answerer hit it. So I am going to posit my theory, which I am pretty sure of and want to hear from you guys about it.

Ok- so the US had already restrained emissions by the time the kyoto protocol was put forward. Every country in discussions about joining were making different levels of emissions. So for the countries that were emitting a lot and could easily change their percentage - no problem to sign. But to lesser poluters or countries where it would be so much harder to make that percentage change on what they were already emitting it was that much harder to reach the target.

I think the US found/ finds it too onerous and particularly compared to what the other signatories have to sacfrice or modify in order to meet the percentage.

What do you think?

Answer 1

Australia did not sign because it would have been effectively impossible to comply with the treaty, and Australia signs treaties in good faith.

To comply with Kyoto, Australia would have needed to shut down its coal fired power plants and use other sources of energy. We don't have enough mountains to have hydro power, enough supplies for oil - fueled power or enough community backing for nuclear. Wind, geothermal and solar power technology has not been developed to the point where they can contribute anything but the most marginal proportion of energy to the national grid.

Besides if Australia complied with Kyoto it would have made an insigificant difference to worldwide emissions. Signing for the sake of "principle" would have come at a crippling cost to the Australian economy. Meanwhile India and China can still pump carbon emitting junk into the atmosphere with impunity - the treaty gives them and other countries too many free rides at the expense of any serious attempt to address global warming.

Answer 2

America did NOT fail to sign the Kyoto protocol. The US signed the protocol in 1998.

However, the democrats sponsored a sense of the senate resolution in 1997 that said that the US should not ratify any treaty that will cause economic harm to the US, so the protocol has never been ratified in the Senate.

Answer 3

it is not substantial what number circumstances you call a lie a actuality, it do not make it so. a million. Congress is in charge of spending, not the Pres. 2. I in no way heard him say international warming does exist so i won't have the ability to argue to that. (synthetic international warming would not exist) in my view, i'm happy he did not sign the Kyoto contract. this is a incorrect plan designed to restoration a situation that would not exist. 3. all of us recognize Saddam had WMDs. it rather is previous dispute. He used them on his very own human beings. the main probable reason we did not locate precisely what we theory is as a results of the fact it took us too long to get in there to look and he had them shipped to Syria. 4. human beings make errors. some human beings are proficient public audio equipment. some are not. Is that a clean interest requirement for the workplace? 5. you're listening to from a liberal media who're purely quoting the main vocal liberal malcontents in different countries. If we've been the main hated country interior the international, we does not be the country greater human beings choose to stay in than the different. it particularly is a actuality. 6. you're kidding suited? regulations designed to enable each and every american very own their own abode, regardless of their ability to pay is what brought about the subject. It had not something to do with Bush. Your information are not information. they're Bush hating speaking factors. And your fact that "absolutely everyone knows" is purely a lie and you recognize it. I dispute your contentions as will many others.

Answer 4

Hmm, every country that signed the kyoto protocol will not be able to meet the standards. So it seemed like a waste of time, paper and money. In the end, the only one they really wanted to hold to the agreement was the US

Answer 5

Kyoto was garbage-really. It punishes America and Australia by pushing our industry away, but rewards "developing" countries like China and India,our top economic competitors,who all the pollution would go to-I thank God that are leaders we rent stupid enough to actually ratify the thing. Any world where fascist China has any more power is infinitely worse. So I agree with your theory.

Answer 6

It basicly boils down to the fact that America has buckled down on pollution, more so than any other first world nation. But the big issue with Kyoto was that the rest of the world wanted you and me to pay for it.

They wanted to build all of this wonderful stuff on the American dime.

We are all for clean air and water, but we are not willing to pay for car parts to be installed in Germany.

Answer 7

Sounds to me like your right. If countries like China didn't get exemptions until (was it 2012?) then maybe the US would have been more willing to sign. And yes, we have made great strides to curb our pollution, but if you look at the numbers you wouldn't think so because they don't take into account the size of our industries.

Answer 8

Its called self-determination. We rule ourselves no one else does, and we shouldn't sign over that right.

Plus the kyoto protocol is a weak agreement at best. Why sign something if you have no intentions of following through? Its just a piece of paper. We need action and less talking.

Answer 9

I think we refused to sign it because China and Russia, two of the worlds worst polluters, were getting an exemption.

Answer 10

excuse me....China is the world's biggest polluter because it's very busy manufacturing products for the American consumer.