What do you think are the reasons of Bush why USA did not enter in the Kyoto Protocol?

Question

is it because he is thinking more of the sake of the economy? i have read an article that says that the goals of this protocol could greatly hurt the economy of US. is it only because of that reason, or do you think there are still other reasons why US did not signed this protocol. here is what i have read.

http://globalwarmingissues.wordpress.com/

i can't just understand why US thinks this can hurt the economy. any explanations about this will be nice.

thanks a lot

have a nice day!

Answer 1

Some people are more concerned about the economy than they are about the planet.

Answer 2

Uhm the Kioto Treaty came up when Clinton and Gore were Pres and Vp. The Senate had to approve the treaty and after reading it it was not even brought up for a vote. The KT is a joke. It retards all moden nations and gives China and India a free pass. Our economy is too big to be ruined by a crappy treaty. Blame Clinton and Gore not to mention the Senate. I am glad it has not been signed.

The KT was signed by the Europeans but their emmisions actually rose so why sign something if you have no intentions of following it? Because it is a piece of c**p treaty that intends to ruin developed countries and to prop up developing countries. Why are so many people anti-American? Envy. Change your own country and maybe you too could be as great as we are. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. Do not bring us down to your level rise to ours. To bad you are steeped in socializm the disease of the poor and stupid who needs big brother to take care of you.

Answer 3

Top 10 'Global-Warming' Myths

Posted: 02/20/2007

Compiled by Christopher Horner, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism" (Regnery -- a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).

10. The U.S. is going it alone on Kyoto and global warming.

Nonsense. The U.S. rejects the Kyoto Protocol’s energy-rationing scheme, along with 155 other countries, representing most of the world’s population, economic activity and projected future growth. Kyoto is a European treaty with one dozen others, none of whom is in fact presently reducing its emissions. Similarly, claims that Bush refused to sign Kyoto, and/or he withdrew, not only are mutually exclusive but also false. We signed it, Nov. 11, 1998. The Senate won’t vote on it. Ergo, the (Democratic) Senate is blocking Kyoto. Gosh.

--------------------------------------...

Don’t demand they behave otherwise, however. Since Kyoto was agreed, Europe’s CO2 emissions are rising twice as fast as those of the climate-criminal United States, a gap that is widening in more recent years. So we should jump on a sinking ship?

Given Al Gore’s proclivity for invoking Winston Churchill in this drama, it is only appropriate to summarize his claims as such: Never in the field of political conflict has so much been asked by so few of so many ... for so little.

9. Global-warming proposals are about the environment.

Only if this means that they would make things worse, given that “wealthier is healthier and cleaner.” Even accepting every underlying economic and alarmist environmentalist assumption, no one dares say that the expensive Kyoto Protocol would detectably affect climate. Imagine how expensive a pact must be -- in both financial and human costs -- to so severely ration energy use as the greens demand. Instead, proponents candidly admit desires to control others’ lifestyles, and supportive industries all hope to make millions off the deal. Europe’s former environment commissioner admitted that Kyoto is “about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide” (in other words, bailing them out).

8. Climate change is the greatest threat to the world's poor.

Climate -- or more accurately, weather -- remains one of the greatest challenges facing the poor. Climate change adds nothing to that calculus, however. Climate and weather patterns have always changed, as they always will. Man has always best dealt with this through wealth creation and technological advance -- a.k.a. adaptation -- and most poorly through superstitious casting of blame, such as burning “witches.” The wealthiest societies have always adapted best. One would prefer to face a similar storm in Florida than Bangladesh. Institutions, infrastructure and affordable energy are key to dealing with an ever-changing climate, not rationing energy.

7. Global warming means more frequent, more severe storms.

Here again the alarmists cannot even turn to the wildly distorted and politicized “Summary for Policy Makers” of the UN’s IPCC to support this favorite chestnut of the press.

6. Global warming has doomed the polar bears!

For some reason, Al Gore’s computerized polar bear can’t swim, unlike the real kind, as one might expect of an animal named Ursa Maritimus. On the whole, these bears are thriving, if a little less well in those areas of the Arctic that are cooling (yes, cooling). Their biggest threat seems to be computer models that air-brush them from the future, the same models that tell us it is much warmer now than it is. As usual in this context, you must answer the question: Who are you going to believe -- me or your lying eyes?

5. Climate change is raising the sea levels.

Sea levels rise during interglacial periods such as that in which we (happily) find ourselves. Even the distorted United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports refute the hysteria, finding no statistically significant change in the rate of increase over the past century of man’s greatest influence, despite green claims of massive melting already occurring. Small island nations seeking welfare and asylum for their citizens such as in socially generous New Zealand and Australia have no sea-level rise at all and in some cases see instead a drop. These societies’ real problem is typically that they have made a mess of their own situation. One archipelago nation is even spending lavishly to lobby the European Union for development money to build beachfront hotel resorts, at the same time it shrieks about a watery and imminent grave. So, which time are they lying?

4. The glaciers are melting!

As good fortune has it, frozen things do in fact melt or at least recede after cooling periods mercifully end. The glacial retreat we read about is selective, however. Glaciers are also advancing all over, including lonely glaciers nearby their more popular retreating neighbors. If retreating glaciers were proof of global warming, then advancing glaciers are evidence of global cooling. They cannot both be true, and in fact, neither is. Also, retreat often seems to be unrelated to warming. For example, the snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro is receding -- despite decades of cooling in Kenya -- due to regional land use and atmospheric moisture.

3. Climate was stable until man came along.

Swallowing this whopper requires burning every basic history and science text, just as “witches” were burned in retaliation for changing climates in ages (we had thought) long past. The “hockey stick” chart -- poster child for this concept -- has been disgraced and airbrushed from the UN’s alarmist repertoire.

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.

Al Gore shows his audience a slide of CO2 concentrations, and a slide of historical temperatures. But for very good reason he does not combine them in one overlaid slide: Historically, atmospheric CO2, as often as not, increases after warming. This is typical in the campaign of claiming “consensus” to avoid debate (consensus about what being left unspoken or distorted).

What scientists do agree on is little and says nothing about man-made global warming, to wit: (1) that global average temperature is probably about 0.6 degree Celsius -- or 1 degree Fahrenheit -- higher than a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen by about 30% over the past 200 years; and (3) that CO2 is one greenhouse gas, some level of an increase of which presumably would warm the Earth’s atmosphere were all else equal, which it demonstrably is not.

Until scientists are willing to save the U.S. taxpayer more than $5 billion per year thrown at researching climate, it is fair to presume the science is not settled.

1. It’s hot in here!

In fact, “It’s the baseline, stupid.” Claiming that present temperatures are warm requires a starting point at, say, the 1970s, or around the Little Ice Age (approximately 1200 A.D to the end of the 19th Century), or thousands of years ago. Select many other baselines, for example, compared o the 1930s, or 1000 A.D. -- or 1998 -- and it is presently cool. Cooling does paint a far more frightening picture, given that another ice age would be truly catastrophic, while throughout history, warming periods have always ushered in prosperity. Maybe that’s why the greens tried “global cooling” first.

The claim that the 1990s were the hottest decade on record specifically targets the intellectually lazy and easily frightened, ignoring numerous obvious factors. “On record” obviously means a very short period, typically the past 100+ years, or since the end of the Little Ice Age. The National Academies of Science debunked this claim in 2006. Previously rural measuring stations register warmer temps after decades of “sprawl” (growth), cement being warmer than a pasture.

Answer 4

Neither the economy nor the Environment is on the top of the world leaders Agenda

Global Control is

and that will be much easier with a lot less people in it.

Their focus is on depopulation, probably more than anything else.

Answer 5

Big business interests (read: corruption) and because he is an idiot.

Answer 6

I think you have it exactly right.  The economy of the USA has been put ahead of the survival of the human race.  Without US participation no international effort can succeed.  The protocol is now seen outside the USA as too weak, not nearly enough, and work is underway on a followup.

Answer 7

I think your assumption is part of it. According to the September 27, 2004, the screamed headline of Le Nouvel Observateur, a French newsweekly, "His reelection (Bush) will be castastrophe for the world and for America. The article indicating 74% German people would back for John Kerry, 63% French wanted to back Kerry, and most European countries opposed Bush's policy. The key point is that Bill Clinton supported the Kyoto Protocal in 2001 for global warning and Bush reversed all the process. The following is clipped from an article relating the answer to your question.

August 3, 2001

SPECIAL REPORT: BUSH FOREIGN POLICY: MAJORITY CONDEMN U.S. 'UNILATERALISM'





As the first six months of the Bush presidency drew to a close, analysts in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and Canada proffered numerous assessments of the administration's key foreign policy decisions--frequently referring to a list of international agreements recently rejected or challenged by the U.S., including the Kyoto Protocol, the ABM Treaty, the CTBT, the Small Arms Control Pact and the Biological Weapons Protocol.  A vast majority did not like what they saw.  The overarching criticisms focused on alleged U.S. tendencies to:  opt for "unilateralist" solutions, reject the very premise of multilateral cooperation, and elevate the pursuit of "narrow" national interests over "responsible global collaboration."  Notably, most of these litanies could be found in leftist to centrist media outlets.  The U.S. was not, however, without its defenders.  A minority, they were largely scattered throughout the more conservative press.  These pro-Bush observers praised his team for being "realistic" about the flaws of various international agreements,  embracing principled positions, and trying to engage other countries in substance-driven dialogues.  Salient themes follow:



IS THE U.S. 'THE LONE RANGER?'..:  Critics had no doubt in their minds that U.S. foreign policy--as evidenced by recent actions--was "unilateralist."  They held that the U.S. is primarily motivated by an obsessive, arrogant and self-absorbed desire to retain its preeminence in the world, seeking at every turn to secure total freedom to "act at will."  Some analysts--many found in the French press, of all ideological stripes--detected an alleged American plot to weaken the U.S.' international competitors, something, they said, to be expected from the "logic of empire."  Several in the press ascribed U.S. policies to ignorance and a certain intellectual shallowness of the new U.S. team.  There were fewer analyses of why U.S. rejection of various international treaties was wrong as a matter of policy.  Rather, implicit in the prevailing argument was that the mere existence of various agreements bolsters global stability and the U.S.' rejection of them was likely to erode shared political values.  In the view of many, the alleged consequences of the "hostile" U.S. conduct included:  the weakening of U.S.  prestige and credibility; the alienation of U.S. allies and the abetment of its enemies; growing anti-American sentiment and increased unity among European countries.  



...OR ACTING TO EXPOSE BAD DEALS?:   A staunch minority took a different view.  Expounding in conservative dailies from Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and a smattering of smaller European countries, these analysts saw the U.S. as being motivated by realism, acting on principal, and pursuing sound policies.  They asserted that many of the treaties rejected by the Bush team had major flaws, featuring anti-capitalist, pro-big government biases.  Other themes included observations that the U.S., as the world's sole superpower, had a unique and legitimate set of international needs, and last, but not least, that actions (or inaction) by Europeans belie their globalist rhetoric.



EDITOR:  Diana McCaffrey



EDITOR'S NOTE:  This survey is based on 77 reports from 30 countries, July 24-August 3.  Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.  

I think America and European countries are more lucky and much better than the most polluted city, Hong Kong. As America is not that worst to compare with Hong Kong. There are more than 1.5 million Hong Kong citizens are contracted with environmental affected diseases of tuberculosis, asthma, and heart. The booklets supplied by the Hong Kong TB, Chest and Heart diseases Association published there were 5,700 had died with smoking related disease in 2007. THe truth is tried to cover up the fact that Hong Kong is not suitable for human inhabitant. This can be quoted by reading Hong Kong Air Pollution Index (API) on a daily basis. The core areas are recorded as >60 to >112, and Central, Causeway Bay, Mongkok are recorded as 166, 147, and 133 respectively. The World Health Organization (WHO)'s API is rated of 30. Hong Kong chief executive, Donald Tsang Yum-keun and the heads of Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department have waived the WHO's API standard by setting to a three times higher than WHO's API standard. You can imagine how bad Hong Kong it is. Hong Kong is not a democratic city and there is no suffrage exist. Hong Kong is currently rated 40% more dirtier (air pollution) than Los Angele (the most polluted city in North America).

Answer 8

Bush could not sign the Kyoto Protocol for the same reason Clinton could not sign it. The Senate voted against signing any treaty that would harm the US economy, and that did not have the same rules for everyone, like India and China. Don't you think it's a bit strange that the guy who is the Chair on the IPCC panel is the economic adviser to the Prime Minister to India?

Look it up.

If it was Bush who refused to sign us on to Kyoto, then why did it sit on Clinton's desk for a year??

Answer 9

I believe it is the same as why the Clinton administration did not sign: huge costs for minute, unguaranteed temperature reductions.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyo...

Answer 10

I don't know much about the economic part, but I know Bush didn't think it was worth the extremes for such a little impact. The Kyoto Protocol has done virtually nothing.

Answer 11

because they don't have the money anymore. the dollar is going down down down and Iraq is STILL costing them... like.. well, soooooooo much

Answer 12

I think it is because Kyoto Protocol hurts the interest of big corporations.

Answer 13

You still don't know the facts?  The U.S. signed (i.e. entered into) the protocol.  This happened during the Clinton administration.  This same administration, however, decided not to submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification.  An unratified treaty has no effect under U.S. law.  Please note that it was the Clinton administration that decided not to submit the treaty, not the Bush administration.  As to why President Clinton made this decision, you would need to check with him and with his Vice President Al Gore.

Answer 14

One of the favorite methods of reducing carbon emissions is through a carbon tax.  

A carbon tax is usually defined as a tax based on GHG emissions generated from the burning of fossil fuels within a jurisdiction. It puts a price on each tonne of GHG emitted, sending a price signal that will, over time, elicit a powerful market response across the entire economy resulting in reduced emissions. It has the advantage of providing an incentive without favouring any one way of reducing emissions over another. Businesses and individuals will be free to choose whether to pay the tax or to avoid it by reducing usage, increasing efficiency, changing fuels, adopting new technology or any combination of these approaches.

If alternative energy was cheaper industry would already adopt to it.  So a carbon tax will drive up costs for businesses.  If your business is energy intensive and the cost of energy increases then many will close shop and go to a country like China that does not have to comply with Kyoto.  

The end result will be that people will lose their jobs, and co2 emissions will not be reduced greatly because industry will move to a country that is not co2 regulated.

Many try to brand skeptics as evil.  But that is our biggest concern.  How do you reduced co2 emissions without affecting people's jobs and livelihoods?

On a historical note the U.S. senate rejected the treaty by the slim majority of 95-0, and vice president Al Gore would not endorse it unless country like china come in.

Answer 15

BECAUSE IT DOESNT INCLUDE DEVELOPING NATIONS LIKE CHINA, A COUNTRY THAT PROBABLY HAS MORE EMISSIONS THAN THE U.S. NOW,  BUSH ISNT A COMPLETE MORON.

Answer 16

Clinton and Gore were in office when it was proposed and they didn't sign it. The countries that did sign it have actually increased their CO2 output since signing.

Answer 17

IT WILL KILL OUR ECONOMY!

It doesn't seem that bad in Europe since they have been in ongoing recession for years.

Answer 18

In order to cut energy consumption, you need to reduce industrial consumption or personal consumption (or more likely both), by increasing the cost of energy.

This will reduce the output of industry and reduce the quality of life of individuals as people and companies are forced to use less energy and to pay more for it.