What should be our gov.'s handling of climate change? And should our gov. ratify the Kyoto Treaty?

Question

Even though I am a Liberal Populist Democrat, I am not narrow-minded or one-sided. I am open to any responses to my question.

Answer 1

Hear the one about the United States having to sacrifice and sign the Kyoto pact if the world is to be saved from global warming, It's turning out to be as bogus as the warming theory itself.

Our European friends have made a lot of noise about the U.S. refusing to commit to the Kyoto accord in which signatory nations are supposed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2012.

"Isn't the U.S. an awful country?" a Labor Party member of the British Parliament said some years ago. "With only 5% of the world's population, it produces 20% of those terrible gases that are warming our atmosphere. How dare President Bush say he won't go along with the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol on global warming."  Smart move, thanks George.

It was actually Bill Clinton, not George Bush, who was in power when the treaty was signed by Vice President Al Gore in 1997 and who neglected to send it to the Senate for approval. Maybe the Clinton White House decided it wasn't worth the effort since the Senate, recognizing a con game, had passed a resolution 97-0 saying it wouldn't ratify the pact unless developing nations had to follow it as well.

But even without the taskmaster of the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. is doing a better job of holding down its greenhouse gas emissions than countries that were so eager — for politically correct reasons, of course — to be a party

But that's not enough. Critics, both foreign and domestic, want to shackle the U.S. economy far more than they want to stop the threat of global warming. They know they need the hardships imposed by Kyoto to achieve that.

Like most popular causes, global warming is about appearances. The U.S. hasn't been eager to enter into Kyoto, so its results are ignored by the scolds in Europe who wouldn't be able to meet the requirements of the accord even if the U.S. did.

But in the wonderland world of climate change, it's what you believe, not what you do, that counts.

Answer 2

There are a few issues here, Kyoto addresses man made climate change, which not everyone believes in, but it also reduced reliance on fossil fuels by requiring reduced consumption or the use of alternatives which are more expensive at this time.  

The CO2 reductions required by Kyoto sound impressive (ie reduce to 1990 levels), but governments have made only token changes to meet their Kyoto quotas, either because they were easy to achieve or they were too hard so they didn't try.  Kyoto in itself isn't going to reduce atmospheric CO2 or ease the global demand for fossil fuel.  It's only a first step or a foot in the door for the UN to pressure governments to comply with more stringent treaties later on.  

Some observers claim that those countries that didn't achieve their targets are in violation of international law and may be fined by the UN.  By signing a UN treaty, this suposedly gives the UN some power over individual countries.  This is not a good thing for many people who don't want a world government making laws that effect the rights, freedoms and prosperity of individuals.  It is possible to cut emissions without signing a treaty.  Signing a treaty just gives up some soverign rights and is one small step closer to a global government.  

No country should sign a treaty unless it benefits them in some way and you don't need to sign a treaty to reduce emissions.  I think the US has the right idea in holding out for comitments from developing countries.  I don't believe the environmental alarmism that passes for science, but a global initiave to improve energy efficiency is something that could reduce global reliance on fossil fuels and ultimately benefit the US economically.

Answer 3

Support efforts to protect the environment, stronger pollution controls, without passing on costs to consumers, and signing the Kyoto Treaty

Answer 4

You know, I just watched a History Channel show called something like 10,000 B.C.  We had a couple of ice ages back then and and I'm really ticked at grandpa Fred for driving that foot powered hybrid.  I told him, trade it in for a big V-8 and the second ice age would not happen.  But you know Mr. Flintstone, he'll not listen.  So now we have some heat, wonder what melted all that ice the first two (heard it was five) times?  No matter, we will just turn corn into fuel.  Makes sense, don't it?  Oh, by the way, the cost of corn goes way up, good for farmers not so good for those that need to feed the cows, chickens, pigs etc. that produce the milk, cheese, eggs, meat etc. you put on your table.  Your going to pay at the pump or at the table, unfortunately you don't get to pick.  Most of us that are out of our teens, I think would rather eat than drive.  Not to worry, the Earth has been around along time and even if you do not believe it is a living organism it will find a way to rid it's self of this parasite we call humans.

Answer 5

Ratify the Kyoto Accords...this is a joke right...???

Everything in this Country will go up by 1000%...

Suggest you read it instead of take a 10 second

spot as fact...It basically takes away all your rights

and puts them under the UN...

Really has less to do with Climate then it

does UN Taxes on US Citizens...and

"One World Government" !!!!

Answer 6

The Kyoto treaty does not commit the major polluters to control their output, China for instance is the worst polluter and is not in the agreement. For the US to meet the requirements of Kyoto would cost an inestimable amount of our treasure and would accomplish little if anything.

I know that there is a feeling of urgency to "do" something about the climate change but that feeling needs to be set aside. If you look closely at the arguments you may find that sun spots have the most significant effect on global temperatures. Human effect on global temperatures are not significant.  The real issue is air pollution.

The government should continue to enforce its regulations against unwanted emissions from industrial sources. Other than that it should get out of the way and let the genius of American people solve the problems. The problem solvers will be rewarded with profits. History has proven this to be the  best system even with all of its warts.

Answer 7

You can't "handle" something that is out of your control, nor should you punish your economic viability by imposing artificial and repressive boundaries on your producing potential.