The Kyoto Protocal: Why is the U.S. opposed to ratifying it?

With the approval by the Russian Parliament finally of the Kyoto Protocal recently, it leaves only the United States the only major industrial nation to reject signing the agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I know that the Bush Administration would not opt to deny acceptance of the Kyoto Protocal without a reason (no matter how inadequate an argument it may be). So why has the U.S. rejected it?

We're the single leading nation of producing harmful greenhouse gas emssions. I believe the figure was something like 30 to 40% in a poll conducted in 1990. That's highly alarming. Could someone enlighten me?

<[-]> Saber

 

Uhh...you forgot about China.

While I definitely think the Kyoto protocol was a work in progress and should not have been abandoned, there was really no chance it would pass in the Senate without China agreeing to it as well, which most likely wasn't going to happen.

But yes, our pollution is pretty alarming and I think the Kyoto Protocol in theory is excellent.

 

Simple: Because the US Administration believes that they are accountable to no one, not even their voters. In the rare occasion that the majority of (non-)voters even has an opinion other than we are the world, the lawyers can correct the result of an election.

 

First off all, it is important to note that the initial ratification period for the treaty was from March 16, 1998 to March 15, 1999.

The US didn't ratify it then either, and if you look at the dates, you'll note that they fall under the previous administration.

It's like blaming the current administration for the embargo against Cuba, while ignoring the fact that the US has had an embargo for 50 years.

The main concern over the treaty is that it allows for "emissions credits."

Under this system, countries that meet their Kyoto levels can sell excess "pollution" on the open market.

Not only is the practice environmentally absurd, but it switches the power to wealthy developing nations.

For example, China, a country that is an extremely powerful developing nation, could buy credits from Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Cambodia.

The other countries wouldn't be polluting that much, but China would be polluting THAT MUCH MORE, while at the same time, increasing its industrial capacity beyond the limits imposed on other established industiralized nations.

As another concern, Russia just signed the treaty, a move which was called "solely politically motivated."

The issue is that since Russia is experiencing a severe downturn in production anyway, it is going to auction its Kyoto credits on the global market.

These could reach billions of dollars.

Now, the concern is that this will give Russia billions of unregulated money, and if Russia chooses to break the treaty anyway, there is nothing anyone can do.

 

oh yeah, and I forgot this:

it leaves only the United States the only major industrial nation to reject signing the agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Well, as far as I know

1)Australia hasn't ratified it either, because the treaty isn't flexible enough for future Aussie growth.

2)Swizterland hasn't ratified it because it has its own national C02 program.

12 other countires, including Egypt, Indonesia, and the Phillipines haven't ratified it for various reasons.

But the US is the only country that is seen as evil for raising valid concerns...

 

Besides Australia, that list is quite weak if you ask me.

First off Australia is the biggest polluter per capita but the other mentioned countries levels don't even come near it.

Overall though USA's emissions is still the highest and I think people are looking at those figures when they target the USA. While they...rightfully...should also be targeting Australia but nobody pays attention to Australia, so your out of luck

But anyway besides that I seem to agree with you on this issue. Its a nice idea it just doesn't work.

 

Wait, I thought I read a report that the US emits less pollution or whatever ( forget what it was, probably not pollution), than most of the other countries, and on top of that the Kyoto protocol wasn't proven to work, and THAT was why we didn't ratify it?

EDIT: In the rare occasion that the majority of (non-)voters even has an opinion other than we are the world, the lawyers can correct the result of an election.

Wait, you do realize that JOhn "I Can Sue My Way To Victory" Kerry-Edwards is doing more lawsuits than the Republicans right? Such as disqualifying military vote, allowing people to vote in two states (Ohio and Florida especially)? Their "allow everyone to vote" routine isn't all it's made up to be. Sure, they're doing some good, but thee's a lot of bad and disenfranchisement going on both sides, but especially the Democrats.

 

I don't know about anything else in your post, but I don't think the Kyoto Protocol being "proven" to work was one of the reasons. After all, the only real "proof" would be if it was actually accepted and followed by all nations, then actually worked after several years in operation. Since this is, by definition, impossible, I'm not sure how one would make this objection.