Did George Bush sign the Kyoto agreement?

Answer 1

No he did not because he believed that it would hurt the US economy is we do have to buy credits from developing countries. hint hint: one of the worst decisons that he made towards the environment.

Answer 2

Oh for the love of Pete.

Why can't people take 5 minutes to look up the Kyoto Protocol?

If the asker had bothered to look, the asker would have seen that the Kyoto Protocol finalized in 1997. A simple calculation (2001 - 1997 = 4) would have told the asker that something occured 4 years before Bush was President that sunk ratification of the treaty.

What happened in those 4 years previous to Bush becoming President has been thoroughly explained in previous posts.

Please, do just a quick search before asking questions that are demonstrably wrong.

Answer 3

The Kyoto agreement is the MOST corrupt scheme I've heard of to date. If we get pulled into this cesspool, it will be a case of the rich getting richer. If you hate the oil companies now, just wait until they obtain total absolution of all their environmental sins, the billions in cost are passed to the poor and middle class, and to top it off, nothing of substance is done to help the environment.

Wake up people! You are being fed a big, steaming bowl of manure!

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,2093850,00.html

A separate report by Open Europe, in July 2006, found that UK oil companies were also poised to make a lot of free money: £10.2m for Esso; £17.9m for BP; and £20.7m for Shell. And behind this profiteering, the environmental reality was that these major producers of carbon emissions were under no pressure from the scheme to cut emissions.

At the other end of this EU market, smaller organisations like UK hospitals and 18 universities, who had been given far fewer EUAs, were forced to go out and buy them - while the price was still high. So, for example, the University of Manchester spent £92,500 on EUAs. Now that the truth about the glut has been revealed, the university would be doing well if it managed to get £1,000 for the lot of them.

While this EU market has failed to make any serious impact on climate change, the UN's Clean Development Mechanism has done little better. In contrast to the EU system, which sells permits to produce supposedly limited quantities of greenhouse gases, the CDM sets up projects which are supposed to reduce the quantity of greenhouse gases and then sells carbon credits which allow buyers to emit more gases.

Ten years after the idea was launched at Kyoto; six years after the guidelines were drawn up at Marrakech; a year and a half after it finally went to work: the CDM thus far has issued only 50m tonnes of certified emissions reductions to offset global warming: Britain produces more emissions than that in a single month.

Good thing that American Oil companies are FAR more ethical than their European counterparts...



And there will be folks on this forum who call themselves environmentalists, who will give this answer a thumbs down, that will not even read this answer, who will not read this article...or worse yet, read it and still believe that this Kyoto deal is a good one.

For those who want to do something about global warming, it's time to come up with a new tactic and throw Kyoto to the curb...

And for skeptics as myself who never trusted this scheme, you can still do your part to conserve and maybe, just maybe, keep these Kyoto Krooks out of our backpockets.

Answer 4

The U.S. Environmental risk-free practices employer (EPA) has been engaged on environmental issues because 1972. Air and water pollution is so plenty extra effectual than it incredibly is been. It takes better than the USA of a to guard the worldwide's environmental issues. it is a few thing that must be executed via all and sundry around the realm. All worldwide places can do some thing to help, no count what their financial or political prestige is. The Kyoto settlement is largely slightly the pie. Why do no longer different worldwide places guard different environmental subject concerns? there's a concern with the quantity of methane made out of elephant and rhino dung, different worldwide places nevertheless have uncooked sewage working down their streets, nuclear mess ups ensue in different worldwide places, ocean dumping is a concern in different worldwide places, radioactive wastes are a concern in different worldwide places, etc. Why do people continually seem to the USA of a for help?

Answer 5

No, Al Gore did when he was the Vice President. The treaty was then submitted to the Senate for ratification the vote was 0 for 95 against. It has not been submitted for ratification since. GWB has stated that he will not suport ratification.

So, for the purposes of clarity:

The U.S. did sign the Kyoto protocol.
.
The U.S. Senate did not ratify this treaty, not during the Clinton administration and not during the Bush administration.

Under the U.S. Constitution, any treaty must be ratified before it become effective.

Many of the 95 votes against the Kyoto protocol were cast by Democrats.

Answer 6

NO.

For the White House's statement of position, see the first link below.

Some time this year China is expected to surpass the US in greenhouse emissions I heard on NPR that China is building one coal plant per week. (Remember that many of their people still don't even have electricity.) For example, see the second link below.

Finally, see the third reference below, from the Christian Science Monitor. Personally, I find their article the best summary of the current situation. And, personally, I found it pretty scary. I actually am beginning to change some of my behavior (better late than never)!

Answer 7

And why did Clinton never sign it either?
Because high-polluting countries such as China and India are exempt! France is a small country that passes the clean-air requirements because it runs on clean Nuclear Energy. France has 53 nuclear power plants in an area smaller than Texas. We in the US, run on coal, which is plentiful, and the population does not want any more nuclear power plants.

Answer 8

Actually the senate voted not to ratify it 98 to zero. It is the duty of the senate to ratify treaties.

Answer 9

No, he has stated that he will only do so if China agrees to sign the Kyoto Protocals first.

Answer 10

It was Bill Clinton's to sign and it was DOA when it came up to a vote.