U.S.A. Vs. Kyoto?

Why does America still refuse to ratify Kyoto?





As one of the richest nations in the world, I don't understand why they still refuse to fight climate change. Given that 137 countries have signed inclusive of India and China, the USA remains the only notable exception from the treaty.


America is a very rich nation and could quite easily afford to turn 'green'. Imagine the ramifications if America curbedtheir military spending and used that money to help turn America 'green'.





Only recently, Australia signed Kyoto, to my disappointment it hadnt happened any earlier. How do Americans feel about this?


Are you keen to turn 'green'?

U.S.A. Vs. Kyoto?
Global warming is happening. The debate on this, by any intelligent being, is over. There is still some debate over how much human activity has contributed to it and how much can we change what is happening.





I, for one, believe we should err on the side of caution and do all we need to do to try to lessen the adverse effects of global warming. Should it later be found that mankind did not contribute to global warming, then the financial costs associated with this will be far less than costs associated with the global warming being a disaster to mankind and we could have lessened its effects. I would rather be wrong and recoup the costs later than to be right and have no chance at recouping the cost at all.
Reply:USA does not believe Al Gore even when he already won an Oscar. Americans do not believe that global warming is caused by pollution.
Reply: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.
Reply:It isn't just a Bush thing. Even before he took office, Clinton did not submit the treaty for ratification because Senate Republicans made it clear that it would not happen. And it's not just a Republican thing. Democrats haven't demonstrated much initiative either; they haven't even made it that high a priority.





The two main reasons offered by pols are: (1) it isn't fair for the U.S. to have to cut emissions while India and China are exempted from the treaty and (2) it would "seriously harm" the economy.





Conflicting economic analyses show that the latter point is debateable; as for the first, even if India and China signed on, the U.S. probably still would not ratify. First, the nations likely to suffer the most detrimental effects from global warming would be low-laying island nations -- not the U.S. Second, greenhouse gases result in large part from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, et al.) -- and we already know about the power wielded by energy industry lobbyists. Third, some legislators claim that global warming is not occuring, or that human activities do not contribute significantly enough to the problem to mandate any action.





I have always been a strong proponent of 'green' policies. Maybe the U.S. would take an economic hit at first but I think over time, the benefits (in terms of pollution, energy costs, and maybe even national security) would outweigh the costs.
Reply:From the different analyses of the Kyoto agreement that I've read, it seems to be as dubious as some of the "free trade" agreements we've entered or considered. Just as with some of the bills that get considered in congress, the stated goal isn't necessarily best met by the actual contents. I think there are sufficient reasons to doubt the effectiveness and appropriateness of the Kyoto agreement. That doesn't mean I don't think there should be actions taken -- just that I'm not convinced Kyoto is the smart way to do that.
Reply:Welcome to the Bush years.
Reply:The reason the US hasn't ratified Kyoto yet is that we elected a Republican president who values the US economy more than the environment. This is especially true since the Bush family and their friends made their fortune in the oil industry.





I'm keen to turn green. I'd love to see our dependence on oil replaced with bio-fuels. The advantage is that the carbon that is burned in bio-fuels is pulled out of the atmosphere by plants, instead of being extracted from underground where it hasn't been part of the carbon cycle for millions of years.
Reply:Of course India and China signed it. They were largely exempted from it's provisions.





Now, look at the nations that did sign and ratify it; Denmark (currently 35% above its target), Austria (34% above), Spain (22% above), Finland (21% above) and Italy (19% above), Canada (32% above) New Zealand (22% above), Japan (20% above).





And then there's the craziness that no one has demonstrated that CO2 is actually a problem or that reducing it will have any significant effect. The most "powerful" (assuming the measures that have been accepted for this are even remtely reflective of reality) greehnouse gas is water vapor. No one's talking about reducing that.