Should the US join the Kyoto protocol?
Should the US, the country responsible for the largest proportion of the worlds CO2 emissions accept some responsibility for these emissions and try to do something about it? Is it irresponsible of George W Bush to not ratify the joining of the US to a treaty which many other emissions producing nations have joined and try to cut down on this huge output of emissions? Is he creating a bad impression of the people of the US by not joining?
Comments
<strong>Should the US, the country responsible for the largest proportion of the worlds CO2 emissions accept some responsibility for these emissions and try to do something about it? Is it irresponsible of George W Bush to not ratify the joining of the US to a treaty which many other emissions producing nations have joined and try to cut down on this huge output of emissions? Is he creating a bad impression of the people of the US by not joining?</strong><hr></blockquote>
i don't know is the US should join the Tokyo protocol, but they rather try to limit their emissions.
<strong>
i don't know is the US should join the Tokyo protocol, but they rather try to limit their emissions.
It may seem better in the eyes of the world if the US did join the Kyoto protocol. It would also enable the US and other nations to collaborate and set down some emissions control guidelines to help make emission control a more uniform initiative.
<strong>
It may seem better in the eyes of the world if the US did join the Kyoto protocol. It would also enable the US and other nations to collaborate and set down some emissions control guidelines to help make emission control a more uniform initiative.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was kidding , but more seriously acts are better than promises, if countries only sign a protocol and did not respect it ; it's worthless.
Howeve the problem of the emissions is a serious issue
[ 07-05-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
<strong>It's good to know that the people of the US care about the threat of emissions. The president may not be doing anything about the problem but the people can, and probably will, act upon it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately i come from France.
of course we should sign and we should be doing much more to combat global warming and global pollution....g
<strong>
Unfortunately i come from France.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's okay. Your views still matter to the world. France has been trying several schemes to reduce emissions. Are they still doing that scheme where they ban all cars with an odd numbered registration from being on the roads for a day, then the even numbers?
George Bush cannot ratify treaties. Any treaty that Bush signs must be presented to the Senate for ratification. This is spelled out in the Constitution and it has been this way for over 200 years. Even if Bush were to sign Kyoto (or the Rome Treaty for the ICC for that matter) there is no doubt that Kyoto would be defeated in the Senate. Many Europeans would love to heap all of the blame on everyone's favorite blithering idiot for not supporting Kyoto and he is an easy target. But his lack of support is far from the only obstacle in the way of US acceptance of Kyoto. On the other hand, his general lack of interest in doing anything at all about some of the issues involved is certainly his responsibility and one which he has shirked so far.
I heard recently that over 17,000 of the world's scientists do not necessarily agree whether the 2 to 3 % of additional CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans is enough to cause global warming. Plus, if the U.S. signed it, many jobs would be transferred to developing nations who are exempt from the Kyoto protocol.
2. The perception that George W. Bush is "doing nothing" about the environment is just that, a PERCEPTION, mostly by the liberal left. This is equivalent to the PERCEPTION that Clinton was great for the envirnoment, which he wasn't. What If I told you that the recent wildfires in the West were worsened because of federal anti-logging regulations? I know this for a fact. The lumber industry was not allowed to cut (not even the dead trees) in many federally protected areas. These regulations were passed under the Clinton administration, sometimes putting entire towns out of work because of saw mill closures. The Clinton administration was as much endeared to the environmental lobby as people say Bush is to the oil industry. But, what people fail to see is that the lumber industry plants more tress every year than it cuts down. There are also more trees in the US today than during the revolutionary war. The PERCEPTION was different.
3. Kyoto Sucks. It exempts 80% of the world's largest polluters, including China I believe. None of this matters anyway because there is widespread opposition to it in the Senate, as there should be.
4. Global warming is not fact.
Although the Kyoto protocol may not include many polluting contries it is a step towards total, worldwide emissions control. The fact remains that the US contributes most to world emissions and has been given the chance to try to reduce them. If Bush cannot ratify this protocol then the question is why doesn't the senate?
<strong>Clinton's policy on logging is one thing but what has Bush done to dispel the perception that he doesn't care for emissions reduction, bearing in mind he is involved in the oil industry and so would benefit from inaction?
Although the Kyoto protocol may not include many polluting contries it is a step towards total, worldwide emissions control. The fact remains that the US contributes most to world emissions and has been given the chance to try to reduce them. If Bush cannot ratify this protocol then the question is why doesn't the senate?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the Senate won't either because of the serious flaws in the treaty. It would harm US businesses, exempt many nations, etc. It won't happen. And, from what I understand, it isn't even a close vote. I think the last vote on it was 99-0.
I agree Bush hasn't done much to dispel the notion he is against emissions reduction. He really should. The CO2 thing was a little overplayed, because he proposed reducing many other pollutants. But, the environmental people went nuts because he originally included it in a longer list of "pollutants" in one speech. All of a sudden, he's "breaking his pledge" or "reversing" himself.
<strong>
That's okay. Your views still matter to the world. France has been trying several schemes to reduce emissions. Are they still doing that scheme where they ban all cars with an odd numbered registration from being on the roads for a day, then the even numbers?</strong><hr></blockquote>
you refer to the green card (la pastille verte), this card is not very often use in practice, during days of great pollutions in huge town , speed is limited. The use of the green card or even number is exceptionnal.
France has not a very high rate for an industrial country compared to the others due to the high number of nuclear plants which furnish us 80 % of our electrecity. Nuclear brings some problems : the radioactive garbages, but solve some of them : the emission of CO2.
<strong>The fact remains that the US contributes most to world emissions and has been given the chance to try to reduce them....
If Bush cannot ratify this protocol then the question is why doesn't the senate?</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. It is so gracious of the eco-Nazis to give us this opportunity. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
2. The senate would never sign it because they know the treaty and the "science" behind it are crap.
I suggest you get a civics book and learn a little about our democratic process.
<strong>Should the US, the country responsible for the largest proportion of the worlds CO2 emissions accept some responsibility for these emissions and try to do something about it? Is it irresponsible of George W Bush to not ratify the joining of the US to a treaty which many other emissions producing nations have joined and try to cut down on this huge output of emissions? Is he creating a bad impression of the people of the US by not joining?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The US should sign it only after exempt countries like *China* (who are in the WTO and the largest manufacturing country with 1 billion poeple) *also* sign it.
<strong>
The US should sign it only after exempt countries like *China* (who are in the WTO and the largest manufacturing country with 1 billion poeple) *also* sign it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. And, all the folks out there that think we are a great big, industrial nation should realize that we are NO LONGER an industrial nation. 80% of our economy is service based. We can't exempt friggin' China, who is a huge polluter. To me, this isn't about bad science. It's about an unfair and potentially damaging treaty.