2007-12-12 13:47:52 · 11 answers · asked by corlears56 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because we didn't cause global warming and because a blind eye was turned from developing nations like China and India who produce copious amounts of pollution to get ahead. The Kyoto Protocol was meant to hamstring the western civilization while giving developing nations the freedom to horribly pollute.
It would have also cost too much and could have destroyed our economy to implement. The goals were much too ambitious. Nevertheless, since the signing of that protocol the US has reduced emissions further than the Europeans.
2007-12-12 14:06:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The U.S. chose economic growth over reducing emissions - but so have many of the countries who actually signed on to the Kyoto treaty.
Look at those nice people north of the border: Canada agreed to cut emissions by 6 percent. Whoops. The country is running 24 percent ahead, a lot more than the United States, which is 15.8 percent above 1990 levels. Japan has the same 6 percent target, and is also missing big, by about 13 percent.
Okay, how about the 15 western European countries that were Kyoto's original members? Sorry, for the second year in a row, according to figures released in late June, emissions rose for the EU-15.
Kyoto has nothing to do with preserving the environment. It was just an instrument of socialism (and apparently, a relatively ineffective one).
2007-12-12 14:01:27 · answer #2 · answered by Bubba 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It has a lot to do with the date they picked to revert carbon emission levels to. That is, 1990.
If you take a look at the countries that are bound to reduce their carbon levels (other than the US) they all experienced stagnant growth during the 90s. The US experienced explosive growth. Carbon emissions are tied directly to economic growth.
Why does this matter? It would be relatively cheap and easy for many European economies (and Japan) to go back to their 1990 levels compared to the United States. It would cost us a great deal of money and make our country less competitive against Europe. If Europe got us to sign the treaty it would essentially be a handout to their countries at our expense.
For this reason it would not be responsible for the United States to sign the Kyoto Protocol.
That and the fact that global warming is a crock.
2007-12-12 14:43:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. Unfairly sets standards on the US that the rest of the polluting world does not have to abide by.
2. It gives over our sovereignty to an external body, which is in direct violation of our Constitution.
3. Man caused global warming is a fraud. The whole movement is filled with communists who want to use it to control our lives.
2007-12-12 14:04:42 · answer #4 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because it put no limits on the carbon emissions from developing nations, which would put a much greater economic strain on countries like the US to curb emissions while allowing nations like China and India to continue to develop economically without the need to worry about environmental concerns.
2007-12-12 13:54:00 · answer #5 · answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
last year UN budget cost 6 Billion This year 14 Billion.Its about UN Global Carbon Tax $12 a gallon gas etc Global Gov
2007-12-12 14:00:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because China and India were not even part of it. Russia would make money off of it, and the US would be footing the bill.
The idiots who blame Bush are a riot. It was Clinton that rejected it.
2007-12-12 13:53:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Money. The simple fact is that the United States is the world's largest carbon emitter, both per capita and in absolute terms. The Bush administration just needed something to say to get out of the treaty so American businesses wouldn't need to modernize. The lack-of-fairness argument was the one least likely to produce a laugh, but it's still laughable.
Kyoto needed the participation of the USA to succeed. When the United States shirked its responsibilities to the global environment, the other signatories shrugged their shoulders and walked away. It is dishonest to point to something we failed to support and say, "See? We told you it wouldn't work!"
2007-12-12 13:58:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
Because it was felt to be unfairly biased against the western countries and it was.
2007-12-12 13:52:13 · answer #9 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because it's worthless. It's effect would be to destroy our economy, and do nothing of value for the world.
2007-12-12 14:00:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋