Why does the United States refuse to sign the Kyoto Protocol & blocking any agreements in Bali?

Question

For those that don't know: The United States is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the only major industrial country to have rejected the Kyoto protocol ("The objective of the Kyoto Protocol is to achieve "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

There's a conference going on in Bali with 189 countries to work on negotiations for a new international climate change agreement.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/13/climatechange.bali1

Background on the conference:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/30/bali.climatechange

I really would like to know what the rational is for not working with other countries. Why does it work for other countries to do this but not the US? Would it really hurt?

Please back up your answers with fact (cite references and links) and not rhetori

Shouldn't we be setting an example? Wouldn't it help with the 'war on terror' if we moved away from fossil fuels? What if we stop giving aid to Mynamar and Saudi Arabia? Could we afford it then?

"U bin called": Interesting analogy and I see your point. Using that same analogy then, is there anything to do to help your neighbor or work to change the situation without building a bubble around your house?

Answer 1

The United States of America has done extensive studies and they have concluded that with most of the poorest people dead and 75% of all known species of living things extinct that the United States would again be the dominant world power and they could control what's left of the earth. .

Answer 2

Kyoto replaced into no longer honest to the US. It relied heavily upon the US to make concessions at a similar time as no longer requiring a similar from different international locations. One occasion is that China is poised to develop right into a larger polluter than the US (it extremely is presently working an intensive 2d) yet Kyoto would not restrict China's output of Greenhouse gasses. The Bali incident is being blown way out of share. The convention replaced into no longer set as much as set limits yet to communicate them, now there are a number of international locations desiring strict (and unrealistic) objectives set into the p.c... the US in simple terms needs the convention to do what it replaced into meant to do....communicate the subject and are available to 3 consensus for the subsequent convention.

Answer 3

Kyoto was not fair to the US. It relied heavily upon the US to make concessions while not requiring the same from other nations. One example is that China is poised to become a bigger polluter than the US (it is currently running a close second) but Kyoto does not restrict China's output of Greenhouse gasses. The Bali incident is being blown way out of proportion. The conference was not set up to set limits but to discuss them, now there are several nations wanting strict (and unrealistic) goals set into the pact. The US just wants the conference to do what it was supposed to do....DISCUSS the matter and come to some consensus for the next conference.

Answer 4

Well, considering the fact that Great Britain, France, Germany and Belgium, to name just a few, have failed to meet their Kyoto obligations and have now been fined hundreds of billions of dollars, it seems that the U.S. made the right decision to stay as far away as possible from this political shake down operation.

Then, too, there's that whole global warming hoax. Have you noticed that they're starting to call it 'climate change' now? Guess that whole 'global warming' trend hasn't quite panned out.

Besides, the U.S. already has some of the world's most environmentally friendly businesses. You want to preach or complain to someone, go talk to Russia, China, Pakistan or India. Talk to the sinners.

Answer 5

Let me illustrate it thus:

You are a successful homeowner, your neighbor is on welfare and his eleven kids keep dumping their garbage into your yard.

The city passes an ordinance that you must pay a tax for every vehicle you own, every light in your house, every person who lives in or visits your house. Your utility bills will be surcharged additionally as well. All this money will go into something the city calls The Happy Fund.

Your neighbor is designated as "developing" and therefore does not have to pay any of these additional fees. In fact, he is given money from the Happy Fund to help support his family. He uses this money to buy himself a new Escalade and saves money on sanitation by burning his trash in his front yard.

Two years later, it is determined that emissions in your neighborhood have actually increased, so you must pay even more into the Happy Fund...Your neighbor, who now has fourteen kids, two Escalades and a mercury disposal pit in his back yard, offers to sell you a Happy Fund discount, which he is allowed to do because he's still "developing."

One day you find out that the I-pod your kid spent months saving up for was taken away and given to the neighbor's kid by the Happy Fund people. You finally decide to complain and say the whole thing is ridiculous...and that you no longer want to pay all those fees.

"What do you have against Happiness?" The Happy administrator says. "Why can't your neighbors be as Happy as you?"

You tell them that this has nothing to do with your neighbor's happiness, that it actually has to do with basic fairness. In fact, you say, you can see no logical reason why you should have to pay your hard earned money to a 3rd party so that it can be handed out arbitrarily for as something as vague as "happiness credits."

"You people are so selfish." the bureaucrat says. "I can't believe you could possibly be against Happiness."

You leave the office, shaking your head at a world seemingly turned upside down and come home to find that your neighbor is now stabiling his polo horses in your tool shed.

Welcome home...

EDIT: Who's building a bubble? The industrialized nations have generally given generously to aid the development of those less fortunate. The point I was trying to make is that Kyoto and other similiar measures put very real burdens on those who already give while promising no concrete gains for those they pretend to benefit.

Answer 6

It's not that we shouldn't do the things suggested in the Kyoto protocol. But there are some other nations that need to do a lot better as well.. that aren't hit anywhere near as hard by the Kyoto Protocol. In other words it has good ideas.. but it is not a balanced work. It needs to be better balanced.

Answer 7

I guess the US government wasn't in the mood to destroy our economy. And if the reduction of "greenhouse gases" is so important why don't developing countries have to anything more than "measure and report" their emissions. Fact is only around 36 countries are required to reduce anything from what I have seen. It's nothing more than a way to reduce the strength of some economies,in order to strengthen others. Socialism on its grandest scale,simply moronic.

AD

Answer 8

Typical of the "green crowd" you have left of a good bit of information. 174 countries have ratified Kyoto. 137, including China (2nd largest emissions) and India (4th largest emissions) have to do nothing more than monitor and report their levels of emissions. All Kyoto does is create a worldwide market for carbon credits, hence Al Gore's involvement, and force developed economies to foot the bill for the so-called un-developed economies. I'm glad Bush is sticking to his guns on this one.

Answer 9

The only thing Kyoto will do is to redistribute the causation of the supposed man-made warming trend on Earth, countries that emit little greenhouse gas will emit more, while the U.S. and her economy will suffer.

Answer 10

Simple - We are the world's worst Oil Addict. - The U.S. has about 4 and 1/2 % of the world's population, but uses about 25% of the world's oil production. - The U.S. has the lowest gas prices of any non oil exporting nation. In Europe gas costs $7 to $8 per gallon. The result is that the people their have great public transportation and drive smaller cars - while we maintain a big military to make sure that we continue to have a steady supply of oil.