Do you think the US should ratify the Kyoto Protocol?

Question

Please tell me why or why not.

Answer 1

Of course, or something similar. It is no longer in doubt that human activity is causing potentially catastrophic climate change, and to oppose doing anything about it in the name of "economcs" is so wrong-headed it makes religion look rational by comparison.

Where will our economies be if the world's ecosystems are falling down around our ears?!

Answer 2

there was a non binding "we're voting on Kyoto but not really" vote in the US Senate back when Kyoto first came up.

Kyoto was shot down 92 to Zero.

that's right 92 to zero.

Voting against ratifying Kyoto were Clinton and Kennedy.

You can look it up.

Answer 3

IN A MAJOR FLIP-FLOP, AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATIVES HAVE ANNOUNCED THEY MIGHT RATIFY THE KYOTO PROTOCOL OR ITS SUCCESSOR !!!

This comes 1 month before the Australian election and leaves the US really alone.

This is the opinion of all major Australian economists that Australia should ratify.


By the way, anybody having not read the Stern report (from the former Head Economist of the World Bank) should remain silent before writing non-sense.

Answer 4

Yes, Only if America commit to the treaty and make the neccessary technological and economic changes will they be able to adapt thier economy to the realities of the emerging energy markets and be ready for the 'possible' implications of peak oil. If the US leaves it too long to jump on the bandwagon then they will have little leverage in the new energy markets and international economy and will suffer accordingly.

The US seems to be resting on its laurels at the moment, completely oblivious to it's economic disadvantage to China. Better to get a grip on the situation now, than a rude awakening further down the line.
.

Answer 5

No. Kyoto is old and clearly flawed. Some who signed are not living up to their obligations.

We need a better agreement, and, after 20/1/2009 that should be possible.

Answer 6

No. The treaty goes way too far, and would ruin the world's economy. People who jump to say yes either haven't looked at the details, or simply don't get it.

Secondly, and this is BIG, the treaty is unnecessary. It is a political tool being used by socialists in an attempt to gain a shortcut to enacting a worldwide socialist life for all humans. People see through it and denounce it. Liberals can't directly say so, becaue they'll alienate their buddies in Cuba, Argentina, and other hotspot leftist territories around the world.

But liberals are more sympathetic to it than not, being hatefilled detractors of capitalism.

Answer 7

Of course!

We basically must choose between:
1-strong economy, uncertain future for our children and grand children
Or:
2-slight economy reduction and regulation, better future for our children and grand children

Only seldfish people like Bush prefer 1

Answer 8

It would be good to curb pollution as a whole, however its not going to stop global warming. The earth has been going through its cycles for thousands of years and no man is going to stop it from doing so.

Answer 9

This is all based on the premise that global warming is an entirely bad thing.

http://www.stuffintheair.com/SolutionGlobalWarming.html

It might not be, after all.

Answer 10

No. Not until there is scientific proof that human activity causes global warming. If the IPCC with the input from 2500 scientists could prove it why should we accept that its true.