as for those of you who know what the kyoto protocol is i need your help.those who have no idea what it is here is the short version of it:under the UN countries around the world are trying to reduce the amount of CO2 ..US did not sign it because Bush did not want to do so..
SHOULD THE US RATIFY THE KYOTO PRROTOCOL:If so why?
2007-08-28 09:47:44 · 12 answers · asked by icycrissy27blue 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes we should. Personally I think we need even stronger measures.
Bush claim was that it would hurt the economy (you notice it was not because he actually doubts global warming). That is total BS. Green tech in a very profitable industry. US auto makers would have to step up to the plate. It is unfortunate we as, a country have let them slide. There is no reason, other that apathy, that US auto makers can't make efficient cars.
Even if global warming was not a HUGE issue. The world is going to run out of oil reserves by 2030, that is a conservative estimate that even the oil industry does not dispute. We NEED to get our energy from other renewable resources period.
2007-08-28 10:00:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
No. US CO2 emissions have increased at half the rate of the emissions of the signatory nations to the Kyoto Protocol. Obviously even if you believe in man-made global warming, the Kyoto Protocol is meaningless.
2016-04-02 03:58:35 · answer #2 · answered by Gail 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wrong wrong wrong.
The US signed the treaty, Clinton offered the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for ratification in 1997, as directed by the Constitution.
The senate rejected it by a vote of 95-0, because it allows the world's greatest polluters to go right on polluting, and demands that the US pay for it.
Why were you ignorant of these facts, and spewing nonsense about Bush not signing the thing?
2007-08-28 09:53:32 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Clinton did approve it during his term. The treaty stuck the United States for zillions of dollars over the next sixty years with reducing carbon emissions in North America and implementing newer and cleaner technologies.
Bush rejected it because the treaty made the United States and only a few other nations responsible for global warming, while failing mention nations such as India and China who would not sign, but are increasing their CO2 emissions exponentially and are set to outpace the United States. All that work and money spent by the United States would have been undone anyway by emerging economies such as India and China. It would have required so much money over the course of sixty years to try to reduce the average global temperature of the world by only 1.5 degrees Celsius over sixty years. Ridiculous!
I stand with President Bush. It is sheer lunacy that the U.S. should ever sign a treaty that makes America responsible for saving the planet. Global warming, if it really exists and is the threat liberals say it is, should be the responsibility of ALL NATIONS, not just American citizens and businesses.
2007-08-28 10:06:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Clinton didn't either. The Kyoto protocol did not even address India or China which are two of the biggest offenders in the world. It was a way to steal money from the US and would have been a bad deal.
2007-08-28 09:52:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
I do think the US should lessen our CO2 emissions.. but we don't need a world wide protocol to do that at this time. In all honesty.. if we were smart about it.. we could create a US based Global Market around environmentally friendly products.. and could be years ahead of the rest of the world... and making a killing due to it... if we start it up right and do it soon.
2007-08-28 09:58:28 · answer #6 · answered by pip 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Clinton signed it without thinking. The U.S. Senate rejected the treaty with no vote for supporting it.
So, it's not ratified.
2007-08-28 09:52:36 · answer #7 · answered by RICARDVS VII 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It isn't only the US that didn't sign it.
Most of the nations that signed it have absolutely nothing to lose from signing it. You'll find those that didn't are the ones that have the most to lose.
Oddly enough, the US is no longer the largest polluter. Guess who is? Did they sign the treaty?
2007-08-28 09:53:00 · answer #8 · answered by joshcrime 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No. neither Clinton nor Bush favored passage.
It limits our actions while letting many other nations pollute. That's not fair.
2007-08-28 09:51:28 · answer #9 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think we should because our own government has noted that climate change could be a problem--what does it hurt us to try to combat our pollution while we can still do so gradually? It would also go a long way to break the stereotype that the USA doesn't think it needs to follow the same rules as everyone else.
2007-08-28 09:52:58 · answer #10 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋