The Kyoto Protocol was first written in 1997, why do AGW believers blame Bush for not signing it?

I keep seeing answers from Anthropogenic Global warming believers that sound like they blame President Bush for not signing it. If my memories still serves me correctly wasn't Bill Clinton the President and Al Gore the Vice President in 1997?





True President Bush was reluctant to go along with the idea that Global Warming was being caused or effected by human activities, but in the end he agreed with them and talks became more productive.





I know most everyone hates George W Bush, but who among you would want the job?





And is so hard to understand that it would be hard to accept any policies where countries like China and India, who are starting to over take the US in Green House Gas emissions, are exempt. (These emissions also include other major air pollutants too.)

The Kyoto Protocol was first written in 1997, why do AGW believers blame Bush for not signing it?
Those that hate President Bush fall into two categories, those in the United States that want more control over people's everyday lives (all of us use energy outside and inside our private homes), and those in foreign countries envious of the United States.





The Kyoto Protocol was specifically designed to harm only the United States, or to harm the United States far more than any other nation on Earth.





During the 1990's Europe and Japan were in economic recessions, while the US economy was booming (and energy use that goes with all economic activity). Europe could far more easily obtain the goals set than the US - without the US launching itself into a recession soley to meet the treaty.








In Germany, its average energy output shot down during the reunification and the collapse of the USSR put their energy use down. This is why the output levels of 1990 are used, and are still used. The Treaty will never be signed by Europe or Russia if any year after 1990 is used as a basis to reduce emissions. During the reunification of Germany, the East German factories that were inefficient and wasting money were shut down. The same thing occurred in Russia. And those shutdowns counted as emission reductions so much that Russia still makes a billion dollars every year in carbon credits. They are now able to build factories that are like their western counterparts now.





The hate George Bush because George Bush will not sign a treaty that will launch the US into a recession, if not a depression.





I find it funny as someone answered earlier that China will reduce their emissions if the US signs the Treaty. Every year, China needs to find work for 25 million new workers. For the last 50 years, the US has been in a state of democracy, and protects human rights, but China hasn't followed the example of one Western country in any regard to human rights or democracy. China knows that it is the cause of 50% of the pollution that exists in California as their pollution is carried by winds across the ocean, and the cause of 80% of the acid rain and acidic waterways and lakes in the Western US and Canada. They have done nothing to avert that. To say China will deprave themselves of economic growth simply because the US decides to stop its growth is nothing more than a fantasy.
Reply:And you criticize my choices for best answer? :-/ Report It

Reply:Whatever the delusional AGW enthusiasts don't blame on global warming is reserved for President Bush.


Kinda sad and pathetic, right?....





BTW, the senate rejected Kyoto 95-0 long before Bush came into office.
Reply:It is a political movement. There was a 95 to 0 vote against ratifying by the US senate in 1997. It doesn't apply to the largest emitter of Green house gases, China, that is building coal plants like they are going out of style. How STUPID would he have to be to sign that.
Reply:I just read what S. Fred Singer said about Kyoto:





"Clinton/Gore never submitted the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for ratification. (They were well aware that the Senate’s Byrd-Hagel resolution against any Kyoto-like protocol had just passed unanimously in July 1997.)"


http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv...





Regarding Bush:


"The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide[69]). Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties which he believes are present in the climate change issue. Furthermore, the U.S. is concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty. For example, the U.S. does not support the split between Annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:





'This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People's Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto … America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change … Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.'"[70]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Proto...





Bush Backs Away from Carbon Dioxide Pledge


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Pa...





"(CNSNews.com) - President Bush is backing away from a campaign pledge to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. The decision, sure to please Republican conservatives and the coal industry, has angered environmentalists, who never liked Bush to begin with.





In a letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) on Tuesday, President Bush said he takes global warming 'very seriously' but that mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions would lead to higher electricity prices by forcing more utilities to shift to natural gas from cheaper coal.





Bush reportedly is abandoning his campaign pledge under pressure from Republican conservatives. Some of those conservatives said it looked like Bush, by supporting carbon dioxide reductions, was backing the controversial U.N. Kyoto climate treaty, which requires industrial countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels.





Although the United States signed the treaty in November 1998, the Senate has not ratified it."
Reply:Clinton (and Gore) failed us on Kyoto for those 2-3 years.





However, to be fair, there was significantly more doubt about AGW 10 years ago than there is now. It's not a great excuse, but it's important to consider.





Bush has had a further 7 years to sign the Protocol, during which time the evidence has solidified further. In the meantime, he's also censored global warming science on more than one occasion.





China and India being exempt is no more than an excuse to cop-out of Kyoto. They're developing countries, and not responsible for nearly as much of the CO2 in the atmosphere as developed countries like the USA. They'll follow suit if we reduce our emissions, but we shouldn't expect them to lead the way. We should be taking a leadership role to clean up our own mess.
Reply:Clinton DID sign Kyoto, Bush pulled the US out of that treaty.
Reply:Clinton didn't sign it because he saw how bad it was for any country that cared about the well being of its citizens.





Actually, it's such a terrible treaty that all of the countries that have signed on to it can't abide by the rules and so they just don't.





What good is a rule that no one can abide by and everyone breaks?





Besides, it wasn't going to have much impact on the amount of CO2 emitted anyway. Since 99% of the greenhouse gases are water vapor, it's stupid blaming CO2 for anything other than keeping plants alive.
Reply:No-one is close to over taking the USA in terms of emissions





I think people "blame" Bush, although thats not quite the right word, since by the time he came around there was a lot more evidence than in 1997 and he just stood there and said " it doesn't exist" , which was utter madness.
Reply:Every democrat in the senate at the time was against the protocol.





However things change when the political landscape changed in 2001. Since it was clear that Bush wouldn't give the bill to the senate, those who were against it were now for it.





Remember global warming has nothing to do with the climate. It's all political. We could reduce co2 emissions overnight if the political will was there.





Instead the democrats passed an energy bill that gave massive subsidies to the oil and coal industries but forced people to buy mercury filled light bulbs to make it appear they were doing something.





Sad isn't it?
Reply:Since the first Kyoto Protocol a lot of progresses have been made in climate science. The certainty of human involvement and the severity of the possible consequences if not taking enough actions has evolved. Almost every country in the world now understands the importance of cooperating in this issue and this includes China and India. As things evolve and the emissions of greenhouse gases continues to rise it's true that we need to put more pressure on developing nations to, but everyone needs to understand that in China and India there is still a high percentage of people who doesn't even have electricity in their homes. Yes, their emissions is rising, but they have huge populations who still lives in poverty.





The talk about that cutting greenhouse gases would hurt the American economy badly is in my opinion probably mostly just excuses to protect oil interests, and a way to convince people that the current policy is the best for its citizens. Since 1990 Sweden has managed to cut our emissions with almost 9% and still maintain a good economic growth. The task to successfully continue this mission would be much easier if all countries followed the same rules. For countries to see the biggest emitter in the world ignore powerful actions is having a very negative impact on other nations willingness to act.





You're right, I wouldn't want the President's job, but George W Bush did and I think as a leader for maybe the most powerful nation in the world he has a huge responsibility for how the future of this planet will look.
Reply:Having the number 2 and 3 polluters exempt is an indication that the Kyoto Protocol was just another attempt to fool everyone into believing we were serious about tackling pollution. Number 1(the US) was not exempt, of course, but how about number 4-10? Why do they have to suffer while two of the top three get a pass? Does the fact that India and China are 'developing countries'(all forward-moving countries can be said to be developing) somehow diminish or remove the harmful effects of their pollution? Do we really need to have some foolish, halfway treaty to reduce our emissions on our own? If we are serious, and if all the coastal cities are doomed to be deluged, why are we exempting a large chunk of the pollution? Why not make everyone subject to the same rules?





On the subject of the US having to lead the way; with China and India fighting so hard to get their exemptions, I seriously doubt they would follow any lead. Nope, they will continue to happily pollute the atmosphere as long as they can get away with it. If a treaty nerfs other economies and gives them competitive advantages, so much the better. So long as they don't have to play ball.